George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

[email protected]

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

[email protected]

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

[email protected]

The combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) and rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) demonstrated noteworthy activity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations, according to new research presented Sept. 18 (abstract 579MO) at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021.

The findings were specific to patients not yet been treated with chemotherapy and whose tumors were positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, for patients whose tumors were negative for HRD, the clinical activity was limited, said Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and lead investigator for the study called CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) .

The patients who were included in all CheckMate 9KD cohorts had no prior treatment with targeted T-cell co-stimulation or immune checkpoint pathways. They had metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer with documented disease progression, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and tissue available for HRD testing.

Dr. Petrylak offered an updated analysis of cohort A2 with 71 patients (median age 73 years), all of whom had received 1-2 prior new hormonal therapies in the pre-chemotherapy setting. Patients who had received prior PARP inhibitors were ineligible, as were those who refused chemotherapy treatment.
 

ORR/PSA RR primary endpoints

Patients received nivolumab and rucaparib, nivolumab at 480 mg (q4 weeks up to 2 years) and rucaparib at 600 mg b.i.d., until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate and PSA response rate (PSA-RR) were the primary endpoint, with overall survival as a secondary endpoint, along with time to objective response, duration of objective response, time to PSA progression, safety, and radiographic progression-free survival.

Median follow-up was 17.5 months with median treatment duration of 4.6 months in the nivolumab group and 5.5 months for rucaparib. At the time of the final database lock in March 2021, 65 patients (91.5%) had discontinued treatment, most often for disease progression (n = 43; 60.6%) or study drug toxicity (n = 8; 11.3%). Four patients (5.6%) remained on treatment.
 

Better responses for HRD and BRCA 1/2 positive

Stratifying response outcomes showed higher rates for patients who were HRD positive and BRCA1/2 positive for confirmed objective response rate (HRD+ 25.0%, BRCA 1/2+ 33.3%, HRD-/not evaluable 5.3%, all patients 15.4%) and for PSA response (HRD+ 41.9%, BRCA 1/2+ 84.6%, HRD-/not evaluable 14.3%, all patients 27.3%). Partial response rates were 33.3% for BRCA 1/2, 25.0% for HRD positive, 5.3% for HRD- and 15.4% for all patients. Radiographic progression-free survival was longer in the HRD positive group at a median of 10.9 months (95% CI 6.7-12.0), compared with 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the HRD-/not evaluable group. Overall survival was similar in the HRD negative group/not evaluable group at 19.0 months (8.2-22.1) and the HRD positive group at 22.7 months (14.1-NE).

Safety profile as expected

Treatment-related adverse events were reported for most patients (64/71, 90.1%), with grade 3-4 events in about half (50.7%). The most common event was grade 1-2 nausea (40.8%), with anemia at 32.4% and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increases and fatigue both at 28.2%. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 23.9% of patients, with anemia and increased ALT leading both at 4.2%. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in 15.5% of patients. Investigators reported no treatment-related deaths. “The safety profile of nivolumab plus rucaparib was as expected based on the individual components with no new safety signals,” Dr. Petrylak said.

Longer follow-up is needed, Dr. Petrylak added, to better characterize the clinical benefits of adding nivolumab to rucaparib for this population.

Discussion moderator Guilia Baciarello, MD, Milan, asked how much nivolumab added to the rucaparib benefit. Dr. Petrylak responded, “We really can’t determine how much it’s adding because the single-agent data, particularly with the checkpoints, is generally very low. I can’t recall any published data with nivolumab as a single agent, but for example with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab in unselected patients it’s 5%-10%. So, we really can’t tell how much nivolumab added in the BRCA positive patients.”

Dr. Baciarello asked, “Will there be a nivolumab versus rucaparib trial in HRD positive patients?”

“I think that’s something that needs to be considered. I think we may also want to consider doing a broader phase II in that group of patients to really nail down the signal. That’s under discussion,” Dr. Petrylak said.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Petrylak disclosed numerous financial interests including personal and consulting fees.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

The combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) and rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) demonstrated noteworthy activity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations, according to new research presented Sept. 18 (abstract 579MO) at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021.

The findings were specific to patients not yet been treated with chemotherapy and whose tumors were positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, for patients whose tumors were negative for HRD, the clinical activity was limited, said Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and lead investigator for the study called CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) .

The patients who were included in all CheckMate 9KD cohorts had no prior treatment with targeted T-cell co-stimulation or immune checkpoint pathways. They had metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer with documented disease progression, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and tissue available for HRD testing.

Dr. Petrylak offered an updated analysis of cohort A2 with 71 patients (median age 73 years), all of whom had received 1-2 prior new hormonal therapies in the pre-chemotherapy setting. Patients who had received prior PARP inhibitors were ineligible, as were those who refused chemotherapy treatment.
 

ORR/PSA RR primary endpoints

Patients received nivolumab and rucaparib, nivolumab at 480 mg (q4 weeks up to 2 years) and rucaparib at 600 mg b.i.d., until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate and PSA response rate (PSA-RR) were the primary endpoint, with overall survival as a secondary endpoint, along with time to objective response, duration of objective response, time to PSA progression, safety, and radiographic progression-free survival.

Median follow-up was 17.5 months with median treatment duration of 4.6 months in the nivolumab group and 5.5 months for rucaparib. At the time of the final database lock in March 2021, 65 patients (91.5%) had discontinued treatment, most often for disease progression (n = 43; 60.6%) or study drug toxicity (n = 8; 11.3%). Four patients (5.6%) remained on treatment.
 

Better responses for HRD and BRCA 1/2 positive

Stratifying response outcomes showed higher rates for patients who were HRD positive and BRCA1/2 positive for confirmed objective response rate (HRD+ 25.0%, BRCA 1/2+ 33.3%, HRD-/not evaluable 5.3%, all patients 15.4%) and for PSA response (HRD+ 41.9%, BRCA 1/2+ 84.6%, HRD-/not evaluable 14.3%, all patients 27.3%). Partial response rates were 33.3% for BRCA 1/2, 25.0% for HRD positive, 5.3% for HRD- and 15.4% for all patients. Radiographic progression-free survival was longer in the HRD positive group at a median of 10.9 months (95% CI 6.7-12.0), compared with 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the HRD-/not evaluable group. Overall survival was similar in the HRD negative group/not evaluable group at 19.0 months (8.2-22.1) and the HRD positive group at 22.7 months (14.1-NE).

Safety profile as expected

Treatment-related adverse events were reported for most patients (64/71, 90.1%), with grade 3-4 events in about half (50.7%). The most common event was grade 1-2 nausea (40.8%), with anemia at 32.4% and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increases and fatigue both at 28.2%. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 23.9% of patients, with anemia and increased ALT leading both at 4.2%. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in 15.5% of patients. Investigators reported no treatment-related deaths. “The safety profile of nivolumab plus rucaparib was as expected based on the individual components with no new safety signals,” Dr. Petrylak said.

Longer follow-up is needed, Dr. Petrylak added, to better characterize the clinical benefits of adding nivolumab to rucaparib for this population.

Discussion moderator Guilia Baciarello, MD, Milan, asked how much nivolumab added to the rucaparib benefit. Dr. Petrylak responded, “We really can’t determine how much it’s adding because the single-agent data, particularly with the checkpoints, is generally very low. I can’t recall any published data with nivolumab as a single agent, but for example with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab in unselected patients it’s 5%-10%. So, we really can’t tell how much nivolumab added in the BRCA positive patients.”

Dr. Baciarello asked, “Will there be a nivolumab versus rucaparib trial in HRD positive patients?”

“I think that’s something that needs to be considered. I think we may also want to consider doing a broader phase II in that group of patients to really nail down the signal. That’s under discussion,” Dr. Petrylak said.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Petrylak disclosed numerous financial interests including personal and consulting fees.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

The combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) and rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) demonstrated noteworthy activity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations, according to new research presented Sept. 18 (abstract 579MO) at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021.

The findings were specific to patients not yet been treated with chemotherapy and whose tumors were positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, for patients whose tumors were negative for HRD, the clinical activity was limited, said Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and lead investigator for the study called CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) .

The patients who were included in all CheckMate 9KD cohorts had no prior treatment with targeted T-cell co-stimulation or immune checkpoint pathways. They had metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer with documented disease progression, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and tissue available for HRD testing.

Dr. Petrylak offered an updated analysis of cohort A2 with 71 patients (median age 73 years), all of whom had received 1-2 prior new hormonal therapies in the pre-chemotherapy setting. Patients who had received prior PARP inhibitors were ineligible, as were those who refused chemotherapy treatment.
 

ORR/PSA RR primary endpoints

Patients received nivolumab and rucaparib, nivolumab at 480 mg (q4 weeks up to 2 years) and rucaparib at 600 mg b.i.d., until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate and PSA response rate (PSA-RR) were the primary endpoint, with overall survival as a secondary endpoint, along with time to objective response, duration of objective response, time to PSA progression, safety, and radiographic progression-free survival.

Median follow-up was 17.5 months with median treatment duration of 4.6 months in the nivolumab group and 5.5 months for rucaparib. At the time of the final database lock in March 2021, 65 patients (91.5%) had discontinued treatment, most often for disease progression (n = 43; 60.6%) or study drug toxicity (n = 8; 11.3%). Four patients (5.6%) remained on treatment.
 

Better responses for HRD and BRCA 1/2 positive

Stratifying response outcomes showed higher rates for patients who were HRD positive and BRCA1/2 positive for confirmed objective response rate (HRD+ 25.0%, BRCA 1/2+ 33.3%, HRD-/not evaluable 5.3%, all patients 15.4%) and for PSA response (HRD+ 41.9%, BRCA 1/2+ 84.6%, HRD-/not evaluable 14.3%, all patients 27.3%). Partial response rates were 33.3% for BRCA 1/2, 25.0% for HRD positive, 5.3% for HRD- and 15.4% for all patients. Radiographic progression-free survival was longer in the HRD positive group at a median of 10.9 months (95% CI 6.7-12.0), compared with 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the HRD-/not evaluable group. Overall survival was similar in the HRD negative group/not evaluable group at 19.0 months (8.2-22.1) and the HRD positive group at 22.7 months (14.1-NE).

Safety profile as expected

Treatment-related adverse events were reported for most patients (64/71, 90.1%), with grade 3-4 events in about half (50.7%). The most common event was grade 1-2 nausea (40.8%), with anemia at 32.4% and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increases and fatigue both at 28.2%. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 23.9% of patients, with anemia and increased ALT leading both at 4.2%. Grade 3-4 adverse events led to discontinuation in 15.5% of patients. Investigators reported no treatment-related deaths. “The safety profile of nivolumab plus rucaparib was as expected based on the individual components with no new safety signals,” Dr. Petrylak said.

Longer follow-up is needed, Dr. Petrylak added, to better characterize the clinical benefits of adding nivolumab to rucaparib for this population.

Discussion moderator Guilia Baciarello, MD, Milan, asked how much nivolumab added to the rucaparib benefit. Dr. Petrylak responded, “We really can’t determine how much it’s adding because the single-agent data, particularly with the checkpoints, is generally very low. I can’t recall any published data with nivolumab as a single agent, but for example with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab in unselected patients it’s 5%-10%. So, we really can’t tell how much nivolumab added in the BRCA positive patients.”

Dr. Baciarello asked, “Will there be a nivolumab versus rucaparib trial in HRD positive patients?”

“I think that’s something that needs to be considered. I think we may also want to consider doing a broader phase II in that group of patients to really nail down the signal. That’s under discussion,” Dr. Petrylak said.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Petrylak disclosed numerous financial interests including personal and consulting fees.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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

The annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2021 will delve into individualized approaches in diabetes management, particularly with regard to tailoring drug therapy for type 2 diabetes and management of type 1 diabetes.  

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The virtual meeting, taking place Sept. 28 to Oct. 1 in Central European Summer Time, will feature results from TriMASTER (a three-way cross-over trial of precision medicine strategy of second-/third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes), new subgroup analyses from the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness) study, the final version of a consensus statement on type 1 diabetes management, and new data on the dual incretin agonist tirzepatide, as well as much more.

“I’m a strong believer in personalization. I don’t think the big blockbuster [drugs] will serve the entire community with diabetes. Even in type 1 diabetes, there’s evidence of heterogeneity. ... We need a better way to identify individual needs. I think that’s where we’re going. ... It’s one of the themes of the conference,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology at the University of Pisa (Italy), told this news organization.

He noted that EASD and the American Diabetes Association have recently teamed up with other organizations to form the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

As would be expected, the meeting will also feature numerous presentations on the COVID-19 pandemic, including studies looking at how people with COVID-19 and diabetes have fared; how the pandemic has affected diabetes care; and the still unclear impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells and whether, in some instances, it triggers new-onset diabetes.  
 

New data from previously reported trials

There will be new data from several previously reported trials focusing on specific groups of patients with type 2 diabetes. One is the EMPEROR-Preserved study of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in individuals with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Initially presented in August 2021 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the new data will focus on patient subpopulations, efficacy endpoints, and safety in patients with and without diabetes. A companion study, EMPEROR-Reduced, in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, was presented at the ESC Congress in August 2020.

New findings will also be presented from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease. The study was stopped early in March 2020 because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug in preventing CKD. Now, the data will be analyzed in terms of metabolic, nephrology, and cardiology parameters.

And from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia), new data will also focus on a variety of subgroups of individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

“Our goal is to cover most aspects of what’s happening in the type 2 diabetes field,” EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Rydén, who chairs the meeting’s scientific program committee, added: “We can only focus on so much every year but we try to be active and changing from year to year. I’m convinced that a clinician or translational researcher will definitely have a number of very interesting symposia to follow and learn new things. If you follow all of these things, you will know a lot about what’s cooking in the diabetes world.”
 

Consensus on type 1 diabetes management: Special considerations

Both Dr. Del Prato and Dr. Rydén cited presentation of the new type 1 diabetes ADA/EASD consensus report as among the most clinically important of the conference. Initially presented in draft form at the ADA Scientific Sessions in June 2021, the document aims to move away from routinely applying principles derived from studies of patients with type 2 diabetes to those with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease with unique characteristics.

The final version of the document is expected to include information on goals of therapy, glycemic targets, prevention and management of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, psychosocial care, and special populations, among other issues. It is also expected to include a section dedicated to adjunctive treatments beyond insulin, including metformin, pramlintide, glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for certain patients.  

Dr. Del Prato noted, “From a clinical point of view, this is quite an important step that two major organizations came together recommending some strategies for treating type 2 diabetes ... It really deals with a big problem and tries to provide the tools for improving homogenization of the treatment of type 1 diabetes across the different health systems.”

And Dr. Rydén commented: “I think it’s really important to have, since there’s been so much focus on type 2 diabetes for the last few years, and to have the ADA and EASD getting together and actually write this.”

But Dr. Rydén also pointed out that outcomes data are much more conclusive for drugs in type 2 diabetes to inform international guidelines, whereas “this is much more difficult to demonstrate with type 1 diabetes. With a new pump or [continuous glucose monitor (CGM)] you might show a reduction in [hemoglobin] A1c of X percent or X mmol/mol or hypoglycemia events, but it’s much harder to show improvements in hard outcomes like deaths and cardiovascular events. I’m really looking forward to having this presented.”
 

Diabetes in 2021: It’s personal

Several meeting sessions will specifically address precision medicine approaches, including the TriMASTER study, which aims to identify subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who respond well or poorly to particular drugs based on clinical characteristics so that treatments can be better targeted to individuals. In total, 600 patients with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control with metformin were randomized to a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

According to Dr. Rydén, “The TriMASTER final results will be interesting. TZDs still have a place. ... You can’t give them to people with heart failure, but I think like a carpenter you have to have many tools in your toolbox. And I still think that there are some individuals who respond well to pioglitazone. [The study findings] could be influential, depending on the results.”

An EASD/ADA symposium entitled “Optimizing diabetes diagnosis, prevention, and care: Is precision medicine the answer?” will offer three distinct perspectives, with one speaker arguing it’s the future of diabetes medicine, another that it isn’t, and a third explaining that “the devil is in the details.”

The Diabetologia symposium will focus on a related concept: The use of artificial intelligence in diabetes research and care, with particular application to glucose control, neuropathy, and wound healing.

And during the 36th Camillo Golgi Lecture, kidney disease expert H.J. Lambers Heerspink, PhD, of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), will speak about personalizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, arguing that “the mean is meaningless.”
 

Next-generation incretin therapy: Is weight loss the treatment?

New data will continue the buzz from the ADA meeting surrounding tirzepatide, the dual GLP-1 receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agent.

A session will add new data from SURPASS-3 CGM, looking at the effect of the drug captured by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes; SURPASS-3 MRI, examining the effect of the drug on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue; and SURPASS-4, investigating efficacy and safety of tirzepatide once-weekly versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk.

The drug is notable for its dramatic reductions in both A1c and weight, although questions remain about the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and effects on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Dr. Rydén commented: “Given its effects on A1c and body weight, we would expect a positive result, but one never knows. It’s at least safe, that’s for sure. I think this mode of action is extremely interesting.”

Dr. Del Prato noted that tirzepatide could also “open up a new area of intervention for type 1 diabetes. The initial data were promising. ... It’s worth keeping an eye on.”

A related symposium will address the future of incretin-based treatments overall, while the EASD-Lancet symposium will examine whether the treatment of obesity is the «future» of diabetes treatment.
 

COVID-19, hypoglycemia, bone, and much more

As always, there’s much more on the agenda. Other noteworthy sessions include those addressing hypoglycemia management; a joint EASD/European Society of Endocrinology session on diabetes and bone; a debate about whether women with diabetes are at higher cardiovascular risk than men; and in-hospital management of hyperglycemia. 

A new feature of the meeting will be a daily roundup/wrap-up, where members of the program committee and speakers will summarize the day’s highlights. And another feature, “EASD e-Learning,” has been expanded to include more clinical topics around insulin use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, and neuropathy. 

Overall, Dr. Del Prato said, “it’s a very populated program, with more than 700 presenters, 162 invited symposia speakers, and 53 chairs. It’s covering widely different areas from basic to clinical research. ... It’s a lot of stuff going on.”

Both Dr. Rydén and Dr. Del Prato have disclosures with multiple manufacturers of diabetes-related products.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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