The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expanded indication of the antiretroviral medication Biktarvy for younger children living with HIV. The new lower dose is approved for children weighing from at least 14 kg (30 pounds) to 25 kg (55 pounds) who are virologically suppressed or new to antiretroviral therapy.

“Children living with HIV are in need of effective and accessible formulations of antiretroviral therapy,” said Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Gilead Sciences, the company that produces Biktarvy, in a press release. “The New Drug Application approval is an important step in fulfilling Gilead’s commitment to a goal of bringing pediatric formulations of Biktarvy to children living with HIV around the world,” he said.

Although advances in treatment for pregnant women with HIV have lowered the likelihood of perinatal HIV transmission, pediatric HIV remains a global public health challenge. In 2020, about 1.7 million children younger than 15 years were living with HIV worldwide; 850 children become infected every day.

The approval, announced October 18, expands the use of Biktarvy to younger children. The medication was originally approved in February 2018 for treatment-naive or virologically suppressed adults. In June 2019, the FDA approved updating of the label to include pediatric patients weighing at least 25 kg. This new lower dose of Biktarvy is for a three-drug combo containing bictegravir 30 mg, emtricitabine 120 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 15 mg. It is given once a day in tablet form.

The most recent expanded indication was based on data from an open-label, single-arm study that included 22 virologically suppressed children living with HIV. After switching to Biktarvy, 91% of participants (20 of 22) remained virologically suppressed at 24 weeks. HIV-1 RNA was not collected for two patients because of «pandemic-related study disruption,» the press release said.

“As children living with HIV will be on therapy for the foreseeable future and from such a young age, there are a number of factors I weigh as a clinician when prescribing the right HIV treatment option to my pediatric patients,” said Carina Rodriguez, MD, the division chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of South Florida, who was one of the study investigators. “Finding an efficacious treatment option is paramount, but tolerability and safety are keys to ensuring treatment success. With this expanded approval, clinicians can add Biktarvy to their arsenal of options to help ensure these children maintain virologic suppression with a treatment option that makes sense for them.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expanded indication of the antiretroviral medication Biktarvy for younger children living with HIV. The new lower dose is approved for children weighing from at least 14 kg (30 pounds) to 25 kg (55 pounds) who are virologically suppressed or new to antiretroviral therapy.

“Children living with HIV are in need of effective and accessible formulations of antiretroviral therapy,” said Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Gilead Sciences, the company that produces Biktarvy, in a press release. “The New Drug Application approval is an important step in fulfilling Gilead’s commitment to a goal of bringing pediatric formulations of Biktarvy to children living with HIV around the world,” he said.

Although advances in treatment for pregnant women with HIV have lowered the likelihood of perinatal HIV transmission, pediatric HIV remains a global public health challenge. In 2020, about 1.7 million children younger than 15 years were living with HIV worldwide; 850 children become infected every day.

The approval, announced October 18, expands the use of Biktarvy to younger children. The medication was originally approved in February 2018 for treatment-naive or virologically suppressed adults. In June 2019, the FDA approved updating of the label to include pediatric patients weighing at least 25 kg. This new lower dose of Biktarvy is for a three-drug combo containing bictegravir 30 mg, emtricitabine 120 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 15 mg. It is given once a day in tablet form.

The most recent expanded indication was based on data from an open-label, single-arm study that included 22 virologically suppressed children living with HIV. After switching to Biktarvy, 91% of participants (20 of 22) remained virologically suppressed at 24 weeks. HIV-1 RNA was not collected for two patients because of «pandemic-related study disruption,» the press release said.

“As children living with HIV will be on therapy for the foreseeable future and from such a young age, there are a number of factors I weigh as a clinician when prescribing the right HIV treatment option to my pediatric patients,” said Carina Rodriguez, MD, the division chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of South Florida, who was one of the study investigators. “Finding an efficacious treatment option is paramount, but tolerability and safety are keys to ensuring treatment success. With this expanded approval, clinicians can add Biktarvy to their arsenal of options to help ensure these children maintain virologic suppression with a treatment option that makes sense for them.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expanded indication of the antiretroviral medication Biktarvy for younger children living with HIV. The new lower dose is approved for children weighing from at least 14 kg (30 pounds) to 25 kg (55 pounds) who are virologically suppressed or new to antiretroviral therapy.

“Children living with HIV are in need of effective and accessible formulations of antiretroviral therapy,” said Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Gilead Sciences, the company that produces Biktarvy, in a press release. “The New Drug Application approval is an important step in fulfilling Gilead’s commitment to a goal of bringing pediatric formulations of Biktarvy to children living with HIV around the world,” he said.

Although advances in treatment for pregnant women with HIV have lowered the likelihood of perinatal HIV transmission, pediatric HIV remains a global public health challenge. In 2020, about 1.7 million children younger than 15 years were living with HIV worldwide; 850 children become infected every day.

The approval, announced October 18, expands the use of Biktarvy to younger children. The medication was originally approved in February 2018 for treatment-naive or virologically suppressed adults. In June 2019, the FDA approved updating of the label to include pediatric patients weighing at least 25 kg. This new lower dose of Biktarvy is for a three-drug combo containing bictegravir 30 mg, emtricitabine 120 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 15 mg. It is given once a day in tablet form.

The most recent expanded indication was based on data from an open-label, single-arm study that included 22 virologically suppressed children living with HIV. After switching to Biktarvy, 91% of participants (20 of 22) remained virologically suppressed at 24 weeks. HIV-1 RNA was not collected for two patients because of «pandemic-related study disruption,» the press release said.

“As children living with HIV will be on therapy for the foreseeable future and from such a young age, there are a number of factors I weigh as a clinician when prescribing the right HIV treatment option to my pediatric patients,” said Carina Rodriguez, MD, the division chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of South Florida, who was one of the study investigators. “Finding an efficacious treatment option is paramount, but tolerability and safety are keys to ensuring treatment success. With this expanded approval, clinicians can add Biktarvy to their arsenal of options to help ensure these children maintain virologic suppression with a treatment option that makes sense for them.”

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

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

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

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

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

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

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

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have a threefold greater likelihood of having up to five or more comorbidities in comparison with people in the general population, according to the results of two separate U.S. population-based studies.

The higher rate of comorbidities seen included many of those commonly reported before, such as cardiovascular and renal disease, but also some that may be less frequently associated with SLE, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiac arrhythmias.

“In the past, the characterization of SLE comorbidities has relied on individual comorbidity assessment,” Alí Duarte García, MD, said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, held together will the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“However, a patient-centric approach where a patient as a whole is seen and how many comorbidities they accrue has not been performed.” added Duarte García, who is a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.


 

Multiple conditions “overrepresented” in SLE patients

Dr. Duarte García reported the findings of one of the studies, both of which used data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a record-linkage system that collates clinical and hospital data from individuals who live in 19 counties in southeast Minnesota and eight counties in western Wisconsin; these patients have agreed to share their medical records for research.

The study population included 479 individuals diagnosed with SLE according to joint 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology criteria. These were matched by age, sex, race, and county to 479 individuals without SLE.

The mean age of the study population was 53 years, 82% were women, and 86% were White.

“We defined multimorbidity as those patients who have two or more comorbidities and substantial multimorbidity as those patients who have five or more comorbidities,” Dr. Duarte García explained.

A previously published list of 44 categories of comorbidities was used to classify the multimorbidity seen, and 27 of these were “overrepresented” in patients with SLE.

Patients with SLE averaged 5.3 comorbidities, whereas control study subjects had 2.9. Comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals, the odds ratio for having two or more comorbid conditions was 2.96, and for five or more comorbidities it was 3.06.

The highest odds ratio comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals was seen for pulmonary disorders (39.0).

Dr. Duarte García highlighted four comorbidities that occurred in SLE patients that were perhaps more unusual: congestive heart failure (OR, 13.3), valvular heart disease (OR, 4.2), cardiac arrhythmias (OR, 2.85), and COPD (OR, 2.7).

“Given the association of multimorbidity with poor outcomes, care delivery strategies to manage multimorbidity are needed in SLE,” Dr. Duarte García concluded.
 

Similar findings seen in cutaneous lupus

There is also an excess of comorbid conditions in people with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), Mehmet Hocaoglu, MD, said in reporting the findings of the second study.

Dr. Hocaoglu, an internal medicine resident at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, and part of the same team of researchers as Dr. Duarte García, noted that in skin-related lupus the risk of multimorbidity was about doubled.

For this separate analysis, a total of 303 patients with cutaneous lupus had been matched to 303 controls from the general population. Odds ratios for having two or more or five or more comorbidities were a respective 2.27 and 1.65.

Among the comorbidities seen that were higher in those with cutaneous lupus than in the general population subjects were fibromyalgia, liver disease, hypertension, anemia, hypothyroidism, and COPD.

“Further research is definitely needed to identify if the driver of this multimorbidity in CLE patients is the disease itself or the treatments CLE patients are receiving or a multifactorial cause that is driving the disease association,” Dr. Hocaoglu said.
 

Comment and perspective

“Comorbidities that are not appropriate to the general population, compared to SLE,” seem to have been included in the overall SLE and the cutaneous lupus analyses, Raquel Faria, MD, suggested.

Dr. Faria, an internal medicine consultant at Unidade de Imunologia Clínica – Centro Hospitalar Universitário Porto (Portugal), chaired the poster discussion session in which the two studies had been presented.

She wondered if the researchers had analyzed the data while accounting for “the comorbidities that you knew are due to activity in lupus, like anemia?”

The number of patients with SLE who had pulmonary circulation disorders – 7.5% vs. 0.2% of the general population – also caught Dr. Faria’s attention.

That’s “a really huge number,” Dr. Faria pointed out, “I think it is pretty overrepresented.”

Dr. Duarte García acknowledged that they “took a very broad approach” in using a “very large comorbidity index.”

“What we were observing initially is precisely what you’re mentioning,” he responded to Dr. Faria.

“We were pulling patients who were having disease manifestation rather than a comorbidity,” Dr. Duarte-García said.

These are initial and very exploratory data, he stressed. “We have now moved on to modify the index.” Some of the changes that they have made were to incorporate the SLICC Damage Index Score and tighten up the list of ICD codes used.

No outside funding was received for either of the studies. Dr. Duarte García and Dr. Hocaoglu individually stated that they had no actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to their presentations.

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

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have a threefold greater likelihood of having up to five or more comorbidities in comparison with people in the general population, according to the results of two separate U.S. population-based studies.

The higher rate of comorbidities seen included many of those commonly reported before, such as cardiovascular and renal disease, but also some that may be less frequently associated with SLE, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiac arrhythmias.

“In the past, the characterization of SLE comorbidities has relied on individual comorbidity assessment,” Alí Duarte García, MD, said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, held together will the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“However, a patient-centric approach where a patient as a whole is seen and how many comorbidities they accrue has not been performed.” added Duarte García, who is a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.


 

Multiple conditions “overrepresented” in SLE patients

Dr. Duarte García reported the findings of one of the studies, both of which used data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a record-linkage system that collates clinical and hospital data from individuals who live in 19 counties in southeast Minnesota and eight counties in western Wisconsin; these patients have agreed to share their medical records for research.

The study population included 479 individuals diagnosed with SLE according to joint 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology criteria. These were matched by age, sex, race, and county to 479 individuals without SLE.

The mean age of the study population was 53 years, 82% were women, and 86% were White.

“We defined multimorbidity as those patients who have two or more comorbidities and substantial multimorbidity as those patients who have five or more comorbidities,” Dr. Duarte García explained.

A previously published list of 44 categories of comorbidities was used to classify the multimorbidity seen, and 27 of these were “overrepresented” in patients with SLE.

Patients with SLE averaged 5.3 comorbidities, whereas control study subjects had 2.9. Comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals, the odds ratio for having two or more comorbid conditions was 2.96, and for five or more comorbidities it was 3.06.

The highest odds ratio comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals was seen for pulmonary disorders (39.0).

Dr. Duarte García highlighted four comorbidities that occurred in SLE patients that were perhaps more unusual: congestive heart failure (OR, 13.3), valvular heart disease (OR, 4.2), cardiac arrhythmias (OR, 2.85), and COPD (OR, 2.7).

“Given the association of multimorbidity with poor outcomes, care delivery strategies to manage multimorbidity are needed in SLE,” Dr. Duarte García concluded.
 

Similar findings seen in cutaneous lupus

There is also an excess of comorbid conditions in people with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), Mehmet Hocaoglu, MD, said in reporting the findings of the second study.

Dr. Hocaoglu, an internal medicine resident at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, and part of the same team of researchers as Dr. Duarte García, noted that in skin-related lupus the risk of multimorbidity was about doubled.

For this separate analysis, a total of 303 patients with cutaneous lupus had been matched to 303 controls from the general population. Odds ratios for having two or more or five or more comorbidities were a respective 2.27 and 1.65.

Among the comorbidities seen that were higher in those with cutaneous lupus than in the general population subjects were fibromyalgia, liver disease, hypertension, anemia, hypothyroidism, and COPD.

“Further research is definitely needed to identify if the driver of this multimorbidity in CLE patients is the disease itself or the treatments CLE patients are receiving or a multifactorial cause that is driving the disease association,” Dr. Hocaoglu said.
 

Comment and perspective

“Comorbidities that are not appropriate to the general population, compared to SLE,” seem to have been included in the overall SLE and the cutaneous lupus analyses, Raquel Faria, MD, suggested.

Dr. Faria, an internal medicine consultant at Unidade de Imunologia Clínica – Centro Hospitalar Universitário Porto (Portugal), chaired the poster discussion session in which the two studies had been presented.

She wondered if the researchers had analyzed the data while accounting for “the comorbidities that you knew are due to activity in lupus, like anemia?”

The number of patients with SLE who had pulmonary circulation disorders – 7.5% vs. 0.2% of the general population – also caught Dr. Faria’s attention.

That’s “a really huge number,” Dr. Faria pointed out, “I think it is pretty overrepresented.”

Dr. Duarte García acknowledged that they “took a very broad approach” in using a “very large comorbidity index.”

“What we were observing initially is precisely what you’re mentioning,” he responded to Dr. Faria.

“We were pulling patients who were having disease manifestation rather than a comorbidity,” Dr. Duarte-García said.

These are initial and very exploratory data, he stressed. “We have now moved on to modify the index.” Some of the changes that they have made were to incorporate the SLICC Damage Index Score and tighten up the list of ICD codes used.

No outside funding was received for either of the studies. Dr. Duarte García and Dr. Hocaoglu individually stated that they had no actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to their presentations.

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

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have a threefold greater likelihood of having up to five or more comorbidities in comparison with people in the general population, according to the results of two separate U.S. population-based studies.

The higher rate of comorbidities seen included many of those commonly reported before, such as cardiovascular and renal disease, but also some that may be less frequently associated with SLE, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiac arrhythmias.

“In the past, the characterization of SLE comorbidities has relied on individual comorbidity assessment,” Alí Duarte García, MD, said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, held together will the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“However, a patient-centric approach where a patient as a whole is seen and how many comorbidities they accrue has not been performed.” added Duarte García, who is a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.


 

Multiple conditions “overrepresented” in SLE patients

Dr. Duarte García reported the findings of one of the studies, both of which used data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a record-linkage system that collates clinical and hospital data from individuals who live in 19 counties in southeast Minnesota and eight counties in western Wisconsin; these patients have agreed to share their medical records for research.

The study population included 479 individuals diagnosed with SLE according to joint 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology criteria. These were matched by age, sex, race, and county to 479 individuals without SLE.

The mean age of the study population was 53 years, 82% were women, and 86% were White.

“We defined multimorbidity as those patients who have two or more comorbidities and substantial multimorbidity as those patients who have five or more comorbidities,” Dr. Duarte García explained.

A previously published list of 44 categories of comorbidities was used to classify the multimorbidity seen, and 27 of these were “overrepresented” in patients with SLE.

Patients with SLE averaged 5.3 comorbidities, whereas control study subjects had 2.9. Comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals, the odds ratio for having two or more comorbid conditions was 2.96, and for five or more comorbidities it was 3.06.

The highest odds ratio comparing SLE with non-SLE individuals was seen for pulmonary disorders (39.0).

Dr. Duarte García highlighted four comorbidities that occurred in SLE patients that were perhaps more unusual: congestive heart failure (OR, 13.3), valvular heart disease (OR, 4.2), cardiac arrhythmias (OR, 2.85), and COPD (OR, 2.7).

“Given the association of multimorbidity with poor outcomes, care delivery strategies to manage multimorbidity are needed in SLE,” Dr. Duarte García concluded.
 

Similar findings seen in cutaneous lupus

There is also an excess of comorbid conditions in people with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), Mehmet Hocaoglu, MD, said in reporting the findings of the second study.

Dr. Hocaoglu, an internal medicine resident at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, and part of the same team of researchers as Dr. Duarte García, noted that in skin-related lupus the risk of multimorbidity was about doubled.

For this separate analysis, a total of 303 patients with cutaneous lupus had been matched to 303 controls from the general population. Odds ratios for having two or more or five or more comorbidities were a respective 2.27 and 1.65.

Among the comorbidities seen that were higher in those with cutaneous lupus than in the general population subjects were fibromyalgia, liver disease, hypertension, anemia, hypothyroidism, and COPD.

“Further research is definitely needed to identify if the driver of this multimorbidity in CLE patients is the disease itself or the treatments CLE patients are receiving or a multifactorial cause that is driving the disease association,” Dr. Hocaoglu said.
 

Comment and perspective

“Comorbidities that are not appropriate to the general population, compared to SLE,” seem to have been included in the overall SLE and the cutaneous lupus analyses, Raquel Faria, MD, suggested.

Dr. Faria, an internal medicine consultant at Unidade de Imunologia Clínica – Centro Hospitalar Universitário Porto (Portugal), chaired the poster discussion session in which the two studies had been presented.

She wondered if the researchers had analyzed the data while accounting for “the comorbidities that you knew are due to activity in lupus, like anemia?”

The number of patients with SLE who had pulmonary circulation disorders – 7.5% vs. 0.2% of the general population – also caught Dr. Faria’s attention.

That’s “a really huge number,” Dr. Faria pointed out, “I think it is pretty overrepresented.”

Dr. Duarte García acknowledged that they “took a very broad approach” in using a “very large comorbidity index.”

“What we were observing initially is precisely what you’re mentioning,” he responded to Dr. Faria.

“We were pulling patients who were having disease manifestation rather than a comorbidity,” Dr. Duarte-García said.

These are initial and very exploratory data, he stressed. “We have now moved on to modify the index.” Some of the changes that they have made were to incorporate the SLICC Damage Index Score and tighten up the list of ICD codes used.

No outside funding was received for either of the studies. Dr. Duarte García and Dr. Hocaoglu individually stated that they had no actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to their presentations.

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

After a heart attack, the damaged area of the heart often becomes scar tissue that can’t receive electrical messages to contract and pump blood to the body. The result is a weakened heart that could get an irregular beat, known as an arrhythmia, or go into failure.

Right now, doctors have two imperfect options for repairing this damaged tissue. One is to surgically implant a scaffold that conducts electrically and bridges the heart’s signaling system past the dead tissue. But these implants require open-chest surgery, which is risky and can lead to other heart problems.

Clinicians can use an approach that avoids opening the chest, but the patch used for these procedures may not hold its shape when grafted to damaged tissue.

Now, scientists may be working on a fix that promises the best of both worlds: an injectable patch that conducts electricity and keeps its shape once grafted to heart muscle.

The patch hasn’t been tested in humans -- any such trials are still a long way off -- but early results in animals show potential.

This experimental patch can be rolled up, threaded into a catheter or a syringe, and injected into damaged heart tissue, where it unfurls and attaches to the muscle. Once in place, the patch supports normal heart function, according to results from studies using rats and pigs. The findings were published in Nature Biomedical Engineering.

When researchers placed the patch on damaged heart muscle in rats, they found this fix resulted in a return to mostly normal heart function within 4 weeks. Results were similar when scientists tested the patch in a small number of pigs, which are considered to resemble humans more closely than rodents.

The patched hearts did a better job in pumping oxygen-rich blood to the body, and the amount of heart tissue that wasn’t getting enough oxygen also declined.

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

After a heart attack, the damaged area of the heart often becomes scar tissue that can’t receive electrical messages to contract and pump blood to the body. The result is a weakened heart that could get an irregular beat, known as an arrhythmia, or go into failure.

Right now, doctors have two imperfect options for repairing this damaged tissue. One is to surgically implant a scaffold that conducts electrically and bridges the heart’s signaling system past the dead tissue. But these implants require open-chest surgery, which is risky and can lead to other heart problems.

Clinicians can use an approach that avoids opening the chest, but the patch used for these procedures may not hold its shape when grafted to damaged tissue.

Now, scientists may be working on a fix that promises the best of both worlds: an injectable patch that conducts electricity and keeps its shape once grafted to heart muscle.

The patch hasn’t been tested in humans -- any such trials are still a long way off -- but early results in animals show potential.

This experimental patch can be rolled up, threaded into a catheter or a syringe, and injected into damaged heart tissue, where it unfurls and attaches to the muscle. Once in place, the patch supports normal heart function, according to results from studies using rats and pigs. The findings were published in Nature Biomedical Engineering.

When researchers placed the patch on damaged heart muscle in rats, they found this fix resulted in a return to mostly normal heart function within 4 weeks. Results were similar when scientists tested the patch in a small number of pigs, which are considered to resemble humans more closely than rodents.

The patched hearts did a better job in pumping oxygen-rich blood to the body, and the amount of heart tissue that wasn’t getting enough oxygen also declined.

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

After a heart attack, the damaged area of the heart often becomes scar tissue that can’t receive electrical messages to contract and pump blood to the body. The result is a weakened heart that could get an irregular beat, known as an arrhythmia, or go into failure.

Right now, doctors have two imperfect options for repairing this damaged tissue. One is to surgically implant a scaffold that conducts electrically and bridges the heart’s signaling system past the dead tissue. But these implants require open-chest surgery, which is risky and can lead to other heart problems.

Clinicians can use an approach that avoids opening the chest, but the patch used for these procedures may not hold its shape when grafted to damaged tissue.

Now, scientists may be working on a fix that promises the best of both worlds: an injectable patch that conducts electricity and keeps its shape once grafted to heart muscle.

The patch hasn’t been tested in humans -- any such trials are still a long way off -- but early results in animals show potential.

This experimental patch can be rolled up, threaded into a catheter or a syringe, and injected into damaged heart tissue, where it unfurls and attaches to the muscle. Once in place, the patch supports normal heart function, according to results from studies using rats and pigs. The findings were published in Nature Biomedical Engineering.

When researchers placed the patch on damaged heart muscle in rats, they found this fix resulted in a return to mostly normal heart function within 4 weeks. Results were similar when scientists tested the patch in a small number of pigs, which are considered to resemble humans more closely than rodents.

The patched hearts did a better job in pumping oxygen-rich blood to the body, and the amount of heart tissue that wasn’t getting enough oxygen also declined.

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

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

Background: Some academic medical centers and many community centers use “open” ICU models in which primary services longitudinally follow patients into the ICU with intensivist comanagement.

This is the first qualitative study of hospitalist and intensivist perceptions of the open ICU model. The most significant limitation is the risk of bias from the single-center design and purposive sampling. These findings have implications for other models of medical comanagement.

Bottom line: Open ICU models offer a mix of communication, educational, and structural barriers as well as opportunities. Role clarity may help optimize the open ICU model.

Citation: Santhosh L and Sewell J. Hospital and intensivist experiences of the “open” intensive care unit environment: A qualitative exploration. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2338-46.

Dr. Sweigart is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Some academic medical centers and many community centers use “open” ICU models in which primary services longitudinally follow patients into the ICU with intensivist comanagement.

This is the first qualitative study of hospitalist and intensivist perceptions of the open ICU model. The most significant limitation is the risk of bias from the single-center design and purposive sampling. These findings have implications for other models of medical comanagement.

Bottom line: Open ICU models offer a mix of communication, educational, and structural barriers as well as opportunities. Role clarity may help optimize the open ICU model.

Citation: Santhosh L and Sewell J. Hospital and intensivist experiences of the “open” intensive care unit environment: A qualitative exploration. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2338-46.

Dr. Sweigart is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Some academic medical centers and many community centers use “open” ICU models in which primary services longitudinally follow patients into the ICU with intensivist comanagement.

This is the first qualitative study of hospitalist and intensivist perceptions of the open ICU model. The most significant limitation is the risk of bias from the single-center design and purposive sampling. These findings have implications for other models of medical comanagement.

Bottom line: Open ICU models offer a mix of communication, educational, and structural barriers as well as opportunities. Role clarity may help optimize the open ICU model.

Citation: Santhosh L and Sewell J. Hospital and intensivist experiences of the “open” intensive care unit environment: A qualitative exploration. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2338-46.

Dr. Sweigart is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab showed reduced toxicity, compared with other regimens containing tremelimumab, and the greatest efficacy, compared with durvalumab and tremelimumab as monotherapy or in combination.

The novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab “displayed the most encouraging benefit-risk profile,” wrote Robin Kate Kelley, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. “These findings suggest that a single dose of tremelimumab may be sufficient to activate the tumor-fighting potential of the immune system.”

The incidence of HCC has been increasing worldwide over the last 20 years. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The 1-year survival rates in patients with HCC are less than 50%.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab gained regulatory approval in 2020 for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Several other immunotherapy-containing regimens are being evaluated, including immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents. Immune checkpoint inhibitors – programmed death–ligand 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 – have shown promise in unresectable HCC, but they are insufficient as single agents and anti–CTLA-4 can be accompanied by challenging toxicities.

In this phase 1/2 study, researchers evaluated tremelimumab (anti–CTLA-4) and durvalumab (anti–PD-L1) as monotherapies and in combination, including a regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab and durvalumab followed by durvalumab every 4 weeks. A total of 332 patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive one of the four regimens. The primary endpoint was safety.

While the priming doses regimen showed the best benefit-risk profile, all regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active.

Specifically, in patients on the priming dose, durvalumab, tremelimumab and combination regimes, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. For secondary endpoints, objective response rates were 24.0%, 10.6%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively. The median overall survival was 18.7, 13.6, 15.1, and 11.3 months, respectively.

The priming dose regimen stimulated CD8+ T-cell production, which the authors suggested enhanced response and efficacy.

This novel regimen “may offer distinct differentiating features beyond demonstration of durable objective responses and promising overall survival, including a favorable safety profile with a relatively low steroid requirement, rare [antidrug antibody] formation, and a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by monthly durvalumab administration schedule,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, the absence of an antiangiogenic partner allows for treatment of patients who are contraindicated for antiangiogenics because of bleeding risks or comorbidities like cardiovascular disease.”

Another study, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival, along with improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

The tremelimumab/durvalumab study was funded by AstraZeneca.

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab showed reduced toxicity, compared with other regimens containing tremelimumab, and the greatest efficacy, compared with durvalumab and tremelimumab as monotherapy or in combination.

The novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab “displayed the most encouraging benefit-risk profile,” wrote Robin Kate Kelley, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. “These findings suggest that a single dose of tremelimumab may be sufficient to activate the tumor-fighting potential of the immune system.”

The incidence of HCC has been increasing worldwide over the last 20 years. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The 1-year survival rates in patients with HCC are less than 50%.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab gained regulatory approval in 2020 for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Several other immunotherapy-containing regimens are being evaluated, including immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents. Immune checkpoint inhibitors – programmed death–ligand 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 – have shown promise in unresectable HCC, but they are insufficient as single agents and anti–CTLA-4 can be accompanied by challenging toxicities.

In this phase 1/2 study, researchers evaluated tremelimumab (anti–CTLA-4) and durvalumab (anti–PD-L1) as monotherapies and in combination, including a regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab and durvalumab followed by durvalumab every 4 weeks. A total of 332 patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive one of the four regimens. The primary endpoint was safety.

While the priming doses regimen showed the best benefit-risk profile, all regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active.

Specifically, in patients on the priming dose, durvalumab, tremelimumab and combination regimes, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. For secondary endpoints, objective response rates were 24.0%, 10.6%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively. The median overall survival was 18.7, 13.6, 15.1, and 11.3 months, respectively.

The priming dose regimen stimulated CD8+ T-cell production, which the authors suggested enhanced response and efficacy.

This novel regimen “may offer distinct differentiating features beyond demonstration of durable objective responses and promising overall survival, including a favorable safety profile with a relatively low steroid requirement, rare [antidrug antibody] formation, and a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by monthly durvalumab administration schedule,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, the absence of an antiangiogenic partner allows for treatment of patients who are contraindicated for antiangiogenics because of bleeding risks or comorbidities like cardiovascular disease.”

Another study, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival, along with improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

The tremelimumab/durvalumab study was funded by AstraZeneca.

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by durvalumab showed reduced toxicity, compared with other regimens containing tremelimumab, and the greatest efficacy, compared with durvalumab and tremelimumab as monotherapy or in combination.

The novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab “displayed the most encouraging benefit-risk profile,” wrote Robin Kate Kelley, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. “These findings suggest that a single dose of tremelimumab may be sufficient to activate the tumor-fighting potential of the immune system.”

The incidence of HCC has been increasing worldwide over the last 20 years. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The 1-year survival rates in patients with HCC are less than 50%.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab gained regulatory approval in 2020 for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Several other immunotherapy-containing regimens are being evaluated, including immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents. Immune checkpoint inhibitors – programmed death–ligand 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 – have shown promise in unresectable HCC, but they are insufficient as single agents and anti–CTLA-4 can be accompanied by challenging toxicities.

In this phase 1/2 study, researchers evaluated tremelimumab (anti–CTLA-4) and durvalumab (anti–PD-L1) as monotherapies and in combination, including a regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab and durvalumab followed by durvalumab every 4 weeks. A total of 332 patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive one of the four regimens. The primary endpoint was safety.

While the priming doses regimen showed the best benefit-risk profile, all regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active.

Specifically, in patients on the priming dose, durvalumab, tremelimumab and combination regimes, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. For secondary endpoints, objective response rates were 24.0%, 10.6%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively. The median overall survival was 18.7, 13.6, 15.1, and 11.3 months, respectively.

The priming dose regimen stimulated CD8+ T-cell production, which the authors suggested enhanced response and efficacy.

This novel regimen “may offer distinct differentiating features beyond demonstration of durable objective responses and promising overall survival, including a favorable safety profile with a relatively low steroid requirement, rare [antidrug antibody] formation, and a single, priming dose of tremelimumab followed by monthly durvalumab administration schedule,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, the absence of an antiangiogenic partner allows for treatment of patients who are contraindicated for antiangiogenics because of bleeding risks or comorbidities like cardiovascular disease.”

Another study, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival, along with improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

The tremelimumab/durvalumab study was funded by AstraZeneca.

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.