A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.

The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.

That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.

“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.

“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”

The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
 

Assessing 81 million patients

In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.

Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.

Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.

For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.

“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected. 
 

Rare events

The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.

An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.

An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.

A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.

“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”

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

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use e-cigarettes to vape marijuana than were their Black and White counterparts in 2020, according to a recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers found that 25.6% of Hispanic students reported vaping marijuana, compared to 19.4% of Black students and 18.2% of White students. The study, which is an analysis of 2017, 2018, and 2020 results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, also revealed that increases in this recreational practice occurred among all racial and ethnic groups within those 3 years, with Hispanic students having the largest percent increase, 11.6%, followed by Black students at 8.8% and White students at 7.4%.

“The initial motivation [to do this study] was to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of use of marijuana in e-cigarettes among youth, particularly given the context of the 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI),” study author Christina Vaughan Watson, DrPH, health scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in an interview.

The findings could help clinicians and physicians understand demographic variations among marijuana vapers and help inform targeted interventions for specific populations.

“Understanding demographic variations among those who are using marijuana in e-cigarettes can help inform evidenced-based interventions that may resonate with specific populations,” Dr. Watson explained.

Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were “eye opening” and revealed a pattern she hasn’t seen before in her adolescent clinic.

“I would have thought African-American or non-Hispanic Blacks would’ve been a higher group of use, because when we screen kids that’s what we tend to get from the population we see here,” Ms. Thew said.

Ms. Thew said the findings also had made her reconsider her clinic’s approach to screening adolescents for marijuana use as well as address possible language barriers.

“We are probably missing access to some of the kids that we may need to seek out,” she explained. “I also thought it sends a good message that we need to direct some of our education probably a little differently, especially if it’s a Hispanic population and English may not be the primary language.”

Dr. Watson said more research is needed to assess why differences in marijuana use in e-cigarettes exist among youth.

Marijuana use in e-cigarettes has become increasingly popular among U.S. teens, with one in five students in grades 10 and 12 reporting vaping marijuana within the past year in a 2019 study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. Watson and colleagues also found statistically significant increases in vaping marijuana, with 19.5% of students reporting smoking marijuana via e-cigarettes in 2020, compared to 11.1% of them vaping the drug in 2017. They believe the rise in marijuana vaping among youth may be attributed to states increasingly legalizing adult marijuana sales, which could impact ease of access and social acceptance.

Ms. Thew believes the rise in marijuana vaping among youth can be attributed to the legalization of marijuana, which may send “a message to adolescents that it must be safe for them to use,” as well as the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes.

In fact, as of April 2021, marijuana is legal for adults in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“I mean, there’s just definitely been a lot more use of [e-cigarettes]. Vaping and things like that definitely took off between 2019 and 2020,” Ms. Thew explained. “And I think marijuana use in itself is going up tremendously, I think more kids who would have used alcohol in the past use weed.”

Although public attitudes toward marijuana have relaxed, previous studies have linked it to memory dysfunction, as well as long-term cognitive effects that can interfere with perception of time and motor function. However, studies also have shown that cannabis use can combat age-related cognitive decline and help with pain reduction.

However, when it comes to adolescents, Dr. Watson and colleagues said e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is unsafe, regardless of the substances used in these products, including marijuana. Furthermore, they said marijuana use can lead to higher risks of more problematic use later in life, adding that evidence-based strategies to reduce marijuana use in e-cigarettes are important for protecting young people.

The study author and experts disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Lobaplatin-based induction plus chemoradiation was as effective as, and safer than, a cisplatin-based regimen in a phase 3 trial of more than 500 patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The lobaplatin regimen proved to be a “promising alternative regimen to cisplatin-based treatment,” Xing Lv, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in The Lancet Oncology.

A lobaplatin-based regimen might be particularly attractive when cisplatin is contraindicated, according to authors of a related editorial.

Given the encouraging results in this trial, lobaplatin might even “overtake carboplatin” in cisplatin-ineligible patients, wrote the editorialists, Stefano Cavalieri, MD, and Lisa Licitra, MD, both of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano in Italy.

“Furthermore, the optimal treatment compliance in patients receiving lobaplatin [in the trial] suggests that this agent might be a good candidate for research into escalation strategies,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Study rationale

Cisplatin-based induction followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy is a standard treatment option in the United States, recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

However, cisplatin is associated with poor treatment compliance due to significant hematologic and nonhematologic side effects. Cisplatin also requires increased hydration for renal protection, increasing the risk of fluid overload.

“Safer and more effective platinum drugs are needed for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” the investigators wrote.

Carboplatin is an alternative available in the United States, but “the evidence supporting equivalence between cisplatin with carboplatin is still controversial” for nasopharyngeal cancer, the editorialists wrote.
 

Study details

The phase 3 study enrolled 502 patients from five hospitals in China. The patients had previously untreated, non-keratinizing stage III–IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. The study excluded patients older than 60 years of age, and adequate renal, hematologic, and hepatic function were required.

Half of patients (n = 252) were randomized to induction with lobaplatin and fluorouracil for two cycles followed by concurrent therapy with lobaplatin for two cycles plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The other half of patients (n = 250) were randomized to cisplatin-fluorouracil induction for two cycles, followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus two cycles of cisplatin.

The investigators opted for two-cycle chemotherapy instead of three cycles after observing good activity and safety with two cycles in a phase 2 trial.

Treatment compliance was better in the lobaplatin arm, with 91% of those patients completing two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy, compared with 84% of patients in the cisplatin arm.

The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75% in the lobaplatin arm and 75.5% in the cisplatin arm in the intention-to-treat population (P noninferiority = .007).

In the per-protocol population, the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 74.8% with lobaplatin and 76.4% with cisplatin (P noninferiority = .016).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were mucositis (41% in the lobaplatin arm and 40% in the cisplatin arm), leukopenia (16% and 23%, respectively), and neutropenia (10% and 24%, respectively).

Grade 1-2 nephrotoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss were significantly less common with lobaplatin (P < .0001 for all).

Questions about generalizability

The editorialists urged caution about generalizing the study results to a wider population.

Study subjects were younger and had no major comorbidities as well as good renal function, which is not always the case with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In addition, although antiemesis prophylaxis was the standard of care for the study period (2013-2015), guidelines have since been updated to included more intense premedication, which likely would have reduced nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and possibly nephrotoxicity, especially in the cisplatin group.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin and fluorouracil, whereas current standards for induction chemotherapy are cisplatin plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil, the editorialists noted.

As for the two-cycle approach, it’s known that concomitant chemoradiotherapy with two cycles of cisplatin in head and neck cancer “provides similar outcomes to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with three cycles, but only in cases of accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy,” not with the standard fractionation used in the study (30-32 fractions, 5 days per week), the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by the National Science and Technology Pillar Program, International Cooperation Project of Science and Technology Program of Guangdong Province, Planned Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province, and Cultivation Foundation for the Junior Teachers at Sun Yat-sen University. The investigators and Dr. Cavalieri declared no competing interests. Dr. Licitra disclosed relationships AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

[email protected]

Lobaplatin-based induction plus chemoradiation was as effective as, and safer than, a cisplatin-based regimen in a phase 3 trial of more than 500 patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The lobaplatin regimen proved to be a “promising alternative regimen to cisplatin-based treatment,” Xing Lv, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in The Lancet Oncology.

A lobaplatin-based regimen might be particularly attractive when cisplatin is contraindicated, according to authors of a related editorial.

Given the encouraging results in this trial, lobaplatin might even “overtake carboplatin” in cisplatin-ineligible patients, wrote the editorialists, Stefano Cavalieri, MD, and Lisa Licitra, MD, both of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano in Italy.

“Furthermore, the optimal treatment compliance in patients receiving lobaplatin [in the trial] suggests that this agent might be a good candidate for research into escalation strategies,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Study rationale

Cisplatin-based induction followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy is a standard treatment option in the United States, recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

However, cisplatin is associated with poor treatment compliance due to significant hematologic and nonhematologic side effects. Cisplatin also requires increased hydration for renal protection, increasing the risk of fluid overload.

“Safer and more effective platinum drugs are needed for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” the investigators wrote.

Carboplatin is an alternative available in the United States, but “the evidence supporting equivalence between cisplatin with carboplatin is still controversial” for nasopharyngeal cancer, the editorialists wrote.
 

Study details

The phase 3 study enrolled 502 patients from five hospitals in China. The patients had previously untreated, non-keratinizing stage III–IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. The study excluded patients older than 60 years of age, and adequate renal, hematologic, and hepatic function were required.

Half of patients (n = 252) were randomized to induction with lobaplatin and fluorouracil for two cycles followed by concurrent therapy with lobaplatin for two cycles plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The other half of patients (n = 250) were randomized to cisplatin-fluorouracil induction for two cycles, followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus two cycles of cisplatin.

The investigators opted for two-cycle chemotherapy instead of three cycles after observing good activity and safety with two cycles in a phase 2 trial.

Treatment compliance was better in the lobaplatin arm, with 91% of those patients completing two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy, compared with 84% of patients in the cisplatin arm.

The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75% in the lobaplatin arm and 75.5% in the cisplatin arm in the intention-to-treat population (P noninferiority = .007).

In the per-protocol population, the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 74.8% with lobaplatin and 76.4% with cisplatin (P noninferiority = .016).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were mucositis (41% in the lobaplatin arm and 40% in the cisplatin arm), leukopenia (16% and 23%, respectively), and neutropenia (10% and 24%, respectively).

Grade 1-2 nephrotoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss were significantly less common with lobaplatin (P < .0001 for all).

Questions about generalizability

The editorialists urged caution about generalizing the study results to a wider population.

Study subjects were younger and had no major comorbidities as well as good renal function, which is not always the case with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In addition, although antiemesis prophylaxis was the standard of care for the study period (2013-2015), guidelines have since been updated to included more intense premedication, which likely would have reduced nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and possibly nephrotoxicity, especially in the cisplatin group.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin and fluorouracil, whereas current standards for induction chemotherapy are cisplatin plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil, the editorialists noted.

As for the two-cycle approach, it’s known that concomitant chemoradiotherapy with two cycles of cisplatin in head and neck cancer “provides similar outcomes to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with three cycles, but only in cases of accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy,” not with the standard fractionation used in the study (30-32 fractions, 5 days per week), the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by the National Science and Technology Pillar Program, International Cooperation Project of Science and Technology Program of Guangdong Province, Planned Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province, and Cultivation Foundation for the Junior Teachers at Sun Yat-sen University. The investigators and Dr. Cavalieri declared no competing interests. Dr. Licitra disclosed relationships AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

[email protected]

Lobaplatin-based induction plus chemoradiation was as effective as, and safer than, a cisplatin-based regimen in a phase 3 trial of more than 500 patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The lobaplatin regimen proved to be a “promising alternative regimen to cisplatin-based treatment,” Xing Lv, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre in Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in The Lancet Oncology.

A lobaplatin-based regimen might be particularly attractive when cisplatin is contraindicated, according to authors of a related editorial.

Given the encouraging results in this trial, lobaplatin might even “overtake carboplatin” in cisplatin-ineligible patients, wrote the editorialists, Stefano Cavalieri, MD, and Lisa Licitra, MD, both of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano in Italy.

“Furthermore, the optimal treatment compliance in patients receiving lobaplatin [in the trial] suggests that this agent might be a good candidate for research into escalation strategies,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Study rationale

Cisplatin-based induction followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy is a standard treatment option in the United States, recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

However, cisplatin is associated with poor treatment compliance due to significant hematologic and nonhematologic side effects. Cisplatin also requires increased hydration for renal protection, increasing the risk of fluid overload.

“Safer and more effective platinum drugs are needed for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” the investigators wrote.

Carboplatin is an alternative available in the United States, but “the evidence supporting equivalence between cisplatin with carboplatin is still controversial” for nasopharyngeal cancer, the editorialists wrote.
 

Study details

The phase 3 study enrolled 502 patients from five hospitals in China. The patients had previously untreated, non-keratinizing stage III–IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. The study excluded patients older than 60 years of age, and adequate renal, hematologic, and hepatic function were required.

Half of patients (n = 252) were randomized to induction with lobaplatin and fluorouracil for two cycles followed by concurrent therapy with lobaplatin for two cycles plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The other half of patients (n = 250) were randomized to cisplatin-fluorouracil induction for two cycles, followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus two cycles of cisplatin.

The investigators opted for two-cycle chemotherapy instead of three cycles after observing good activity and safety with two cycles in a phase 2 trial.

Treatment compliance was better in the lobaplatin arm, with 91% of those patients completing two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy, compared with 84% of patients in the cisplatin arm.

The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75% in the lobaplatin arm and 75.5% in the cisplatin arm in the intention-to-treat population (P noninferiority = .007).

In the per-protocol population, the 5-year progression-free survival rates were 74.8% with lobaplatin and 76.4% with cisplatin (P noninferiority = .016).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were mucositis (41% in the lobaplatin arm and 40% in the cisplatin arm), leukopenia (16% and 23%, respectively), and neutropenia (10% and 24%, respectively).

Grade 1-2 nephrotoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss were significantly less common with lobaplatin (P < .0001 for all).

Questions about generalizability

The editorialists urged caution about generalizing the study results to a wider population.

Study subjects were younger and had no major comorbidities as well as good renal function, which is not always the case with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In addition, although antiemesis prophylaxis was the standard of care for the study period (2013-2015), guidelines have since been updated to included more intense premedication, which likely would have reduced nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and possibly nephrotoxicity, especially in the cisplatin group.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin and fluorouracil, whereas current standards for induction chemotherapy are cisplatin plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil, the editorialists noted.

As for the two-cycle approach, it’s known that concomitant chemoradiotherapy with two cycles of cisplatin in head and neck cancer “provides similar outcomes to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with three cycles, but only in cases of accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy,” not with the standard fractionation used in the study (30-32 fractions, 5 days per week), the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by the National Science and Technology Pillar Program, International Cooperation Project of Science and Technology Program of Guangdong Province, Planned Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province, and Cultivation Foundation for the Junior Teachers at Sun Yat-sen University. The investigators and Dr. Cavalieri declared no competing interests. Dr. Licitra disclosed relationships AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

[email protected]

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.

Dermatologists cautioned colleagues to be aware of special hazards facing the LGBTQ community: A higher risk of skin cancer among gay men, possibly because of excess ultraviolet exposure, and acne in transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to acne because of hormone therapy.

The identities of sexual minorities “have a significant influence on many facets of health,” dermatologist Matthew Mansh, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

In regard to skin cancer, he said, “there seems to be consistently higher rates of skin cancer and certain preventable risk behaviors like indoor tanning among sexual minority men.”

Dr. Mansh, codirector of the high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer clinic at the University of Minnesota, highlighted a report, published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, that used 2014-2018 U.S. survey data of over 870,000 adults to look at the association between sexual orientation and lifetime prevalence of skin cancer. The investigators found that gay and bisexual men had a higher lifetime prevalence of skin cancer compared with heterosexual men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.50; P = .02; and aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .04; for gay and bisexual men, respectively).

When compared with heterosexual women, risk among bisexual women was lower (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P  = .02), but not among lesbian women (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.33; P = .95, respectively).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions, Dr. Mansh said, although there’s been fairly little research in this area. What could explain these differences? Factors such as smoking, age, and alcohol use affect skin cancer risk, he said, but these studies control for those variables. Instead, he noted, it’s useful to look at studies of ultraviolet exposure.

For example, he highlighted a study published in JAMA Dermatology in 2015, which examined 12-month indoor-tanning rates and skin cancer prevalence by sexual orientation, using data from California and national health interview surveys. The study found that compared with heterosexual men, “sexual minority men had higher rates of indoor tanning by roughly three- to sixfold,” said Dr. Mansh, the lead author. “And this was among respondents who were adults over age 18. People between the ages of 18 and 34 years are important from a skin cancer perspective as it’s well established that exposure to tanning beds at a younger age is most associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.”

Sexual minority men were also significantly more likely to report having skin cancer, compared with heterosexual men.

In the study, sexual minority women had about half the odds of engaging in indoor tanning compared with heterosexual women, and were less likely to report having been diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer, he added.

Other studies suggest that gay and bisexual men live in neighborhoods with more indoor tanning salons and that they may spend more time in the sun outside too, he said. Some research suggests motivations for tanning include social pressure and the desire to improve appearance, he added.

Overall, “we may be able to use these data to add more appropriate screening and recommendations for these patients, which are sorely lacking in dermatology,” and to design targeted behavioral interventions, said Dr. Mansh, codirector of the dermatology gender care clinic at the University of Minnesota.

What can dermatologists do now? In an interview, dermatologist Jon Klint Peebles, MD, of the mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, in Largo, Md., suggested that colleagues ask patients questions about indoor tanning frequency, the motivations for tanning, exposure to outdoor ultraviolet radiation, sunscreen use, and use of photoprotective clothing.

Hormone therapy and acne

In a related presentation at the meeting, Howa Yeung, MD, of the department of dermatology, Emory University, Atlanta, said that in transgender people, estrogen therapy can actually reduce sebum production and often improves acne, while testosterone therapy frequently has the opposite effect.

“We’ve seen some pretty tough cases of acne in transmasculine patients in my practice,” said Dr. Yeung, who highlighted a recently published study that tracked 988 transgender patients in Boston who underwent testosterone therapy. Nearly a third were diagnosed with acne, compared with 6% prior to hormone therapy, and those at the highest risk were aged 18-21.

The prevalence of acne was 25% 2 years after initiation of hormone therapy. “Acne remains a very common issue and not just at the beginning of treatment,” he said.

In 2020, Dr. Yeung and colleagues reported the results of a survey of 696 transgender patients in California and Georgia; most were treated with hormone therapy. They found that 14% of transmasculine patients reported currently having moderate to severe acne diagnosed by a physician, compared with 1% of transfeminine patients.

Dr. Yeung noted that another survey of transmasculine persons who had received testosterone found that those who had moderate to severe acne were more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety than were those who had never had acne (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.4; P = .001, for depression; and aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P = .002, for anxiety).

Acne treatments in transmasculine patients are complicated by the fact that hormone treatments for acne can have feminizing effects, Dr. Yeung said, adding that it’s not clear how clascoterone, a new anti-androgen topical therapy for acne, will affect them. For now, many patients will require isotretinoin for treating acne.

Dr. Peebles cautioned that with isotretinoin, “we still do not yet have solid data on the optimal dosing or duration in the context of testosterone-induced acne, as well as what individual factors may be predictive of treatment success or failure. It is also important to be aware of any planned surgical procedures, whether as part of gender-affirming care or otherwise, given that some surgeons may view isotretinoin as a barrier for some procedures, despite limited data to support this.”

Both Dr. Peebles and Dr. Yeung noted that the iPledge risk management program for isotretinoin patients who may become pregnant is problematic. “A trans man who is assigned female at birth and identifies as a man and has a uterus and ovaries must be registered as a female with reproductive potential,” Dr. Yeung said.

“While the program remains inherently discriminatory, it is important to have an honest conversation with patients about these issues in a sensitive way,” Dr. Peebles noted. “Luckily, there is substantial momentum building around modifying iPLEDGE to become more inclusive. While the mechanics are complicated and involve a variety of entities and advocacy initiatives, we are optimistic that major changes are in the pipeline.”

Dr. Mansh, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles reported no disclosures.

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

A large study of adolescent soccer players in Michigan revealed key differences in concussion injury metrics among males and females, underscoring a need to develop sex-specific approaches to managing injury in the sport.

Sport-related concussion (SRC) is a specific concern in young female athletes, study authors Abigail C. Bretzin, PhD, and colleagues noted in their paper, which appears in JAMA Network Open. Previous surveillance studies on SRC at the high school and college level have reported higher rates of injury risk and longer recovery outcomes in female soccer athletes. Taking a deeper dive into these trends, the investigators explored whether sex-associated differences existed in SRC, addressing the mechanics, management, and recovery from SRC.

“This is an area that is remarkably underresearched,” William Stewart, MBChB, PhD, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview. Prior studies of males and females have shown that female axons are thinner, with fewer microtubules or internal scaffolding than male axons. This potentially increases risk of shear injury in females. Limited research has also cited differences in concussion risk across the menstrual cycle in female athletes.
 

Reporting system targets four injury areas

The investigators conducted a high school injury surveillance project in 43,741 male and 39,637 female soccer athletes participating in the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) Head Injury Reporting System. The study included students from 9th to 12th grade, spanning from the beginning of academic year 2016-2017 to the end of academic year 2018-2019. Since 2015, the state has mandated high schools to submit data to MHSAA.

MHSAA captures data on four categories: person-to-person contact, person-to-object contact, person-to-playing surface contact, or uncertain about cause of the event. Study outcomes included details regarding injury mechanism, immediate management, and return-to-play time for each documented SRC.

Investigators reported notable differences among male and female players. Documented SRC risk was 1.88 times higher among adolescent girls than boys across all academic years (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69-2.09; P < .001). They also cited inconsistencies in distribution of injury mechanisms among the sexes. Females were most likely to suffer injury from equipment contact such as heading a ball (41.9%), whereas male players commonly sustained SRC from contact with another player (48.4%). The authors suggested that “female soccer athletes have lower neck strength and girth, compared with male athletes, with these variables inversely associated with linear and rotational head acceleration after soccer ball heading.”

Boys had greater odds of immediate removal from play and but also returned to the sport 2 days sooner than girls. “The possibility exists, therefore, that this longer recovery time might, in part, be reflective of our observed differences in immediate care, in particular removal from play,” the authors wrote. Immediate removal from play was also more common in cases where an athletic trainer played a part in evaluating players for SRC.
 

Eliminating the one-size-fits-all approach

Current concussion management is based on a “one-size-fits-all” model, said Dr. Stewart. Male and female athletes are treated following a common concussion management protocol, covering concussion detection through to rehabilitation. “This model of management is based on research that is almost exclusively in male athletes.”

What the study showed is this one-size-fits-all approach may be flawed, letting down female athletes. “We should be pursuing more research in sex differences in concussion and, importantly, putting these into practice in sex-specific concussion management protocols,” he suggested.

Future studies should also look at the effects of athletic trainer employment on SRC metrics. “Although this was a large, statewide epidemiological study of reported SRC in adolescent soccer athletes, inclusive of high schools with and without access to athletic trainers, the Head Injury Reporting System did not include information on the whether there were athletic trainer services available at each school, including specific athletic training services for soccer,” wrote the investigators, in citing the study’s limitations.
 

Girls report symptoms more often

“The researchers are to be commended for taking a prospective approach to address this common observation in high school sports,” said Keith J. Loud, MD, MSc, FAAP, a sports pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Manchester, N.H. The results are “entirely believable,” said Dr. Loud, who was not affiliated with the study. “We have long postulated differences in neurophysiology, neck strength, style of play, and tendency to report as explanations for the observation that girls in high school soccer are diagnosed with more concussions than boys.”

The findings suggest that boys play more aggressively, but sustain fewer concussions, he added. Girls in the meantime, are more likely to speak up about their injury.

“Concussion diagnosis still relies to a large degree on the athlete to report symptoms, which is one of our hypotheses as to why girls seem to sustain more concussions – they report symptoms more often. That could also be why they have a prolonged recovery,” offered Dr. Loud. A main limitation of this study is it can’t overcome this reporting bias.

Dr. Loud was also concerned that girls were less likely to be removed from game play, even though they apparently sustained more concussions. “Perhaps that is because their injuries are less obvious on the field, and they are diagnosed when reported after the games.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving grants from The Football Association and National Health Service Research Scotland during the study. He also served as a nonremunerated member of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Independent Football Concussion Advisory Group and the Football Association Expert Panel on Concussion and Head Injury in Football. None of the other authors had disclosures.

A large study of adolescent soccer players in Michigan revealed key differences in concussion injury metrics among males and females, underscoring a need to develop sex-specific approaches to managing injury in the sport.

Sport-related concussion (SRC) is a specific concern in young female athletes, study authors Abigail C. Bretzin, PhD, and colleagues noted in their paper, which appears in JAMA Network Open. Previous surveillance studies on SRC at the high school and college level have reported higher rates of injury risk and longer recovery outcomes in female soccer athletes. Taking a deeper dive into these trends, the investigators explored whether sex-associated differences existed in SRC, addressing the mechanics, management, and recovery from SRC.

“This is an area that is remarkably underresearched,” William Stewart, MBChB, PhD, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview. Prior studies of males and females have shown that female axons are thinner, with fewer microtubules or internal scaffolding than male axons. This potentially increases risk of shear injury in females. Limited research has also cited differences in concussion risk across the menstrual cycle in female athletes.
 

Reporting system targets four injury areas

The investigators conducted a high school injury surveillance project in 43,741 male and 39,637 female soccer athletes participating in the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) Head Injury Reporting System. The study included students from 9th to 12th grade, spanning from the beginning of academic year 2016-2017 to the end of academic year 2018-2019. Since 2015, the state has mandated high schools to submit data to MHSAA.

MHSAA captures data on four categories: person-to-person contact, person-to-object contact, person-to-playing surface contact, or uncertain about cause of the event. Study outcomes included details regarding injury mechanism, immediate management, and return-to-play time for each documented SRC.

Investigators reported notable differences among male and female players. Documented SRC risk was 1.88 times higher among adolescent girls than boys across all academic years (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69-2.09; P < .001). They also cited inconsistencies in distribution of injury mechanisms among the sexes. Females were most likely to suffer injury from equipment contact such as heading a ball (41.9%), whereas male players commonly sustained SRC from contact with another player (48.4%). The authors suggested that “female soccer athletes have lower neck strength and girth, compared with male athletes, with these variables inversely associated with linear and rotational head acceleration after soccer ball heading.”

Boys had greater odds of immediate removal from play and but also returned to the sport 2 days sooner than girls. “The possibility exists, therefore, that this longer recovery time might, in part, be reflective of our observed differences in immediate care, in particular removal from play,” the authors wrote. Immediate removal from play was also more common in cases where an athletic trainer played a part in evaluating players for SRC.
 

Eliminating the one-size-fits-all approach

Current concussion management is based on a “one-size-fits-all” model, said Dr. Stewart. Male and female athletes are treated following a common concussion management protocol, covering concussion detection through to rehabilitation. “This model of management is based on research that is almost exclusively in male athletes.”

What the study showed is this one-size-fits-all approach may be flawed, letting down female athletes. “We should be pursuing more research in sex differences in concussion and, importantly, putting these into practice in sex-specific concussion management protocols,” he suggested.

Future studies should also look at the effects of athletic trainer employment on SRC metrics. “Although this was a large, statewide epidemiological study of reported SRC in adolescent soccer athletes, inclusive of high schools with and without access to athletic trainers, the Head Injury Reporting System did not include information on the whether there were athletic trainer services available at each school, including specific athletic training services for soccer,” wrote the investigators, in citing the study’s limitations.
 

Girls report symptoms more often

“The researchers are to be commended for taking a prospective approach to address this common observation in high school sports,” said Keith J. Loud, MD, MSc, FAAP, a sports pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Manchester, N.H. The results are “entirely believable,” said Dr. Loud, who was not affiliated with the study. “We have long postulated differences in neurophysiology, neck strength, style of play, and tendency to report as explanations for the observation that girls in high school soccer are diagnosed with more concussions than boys.”

The findings suggest that boys play more aggressively, but sustain fewer concussions, he added. Girls in the meantime, are more likely to speak up about their injury.

“Concussion diagnosis still relies to a large degree on the athlete to report symptoms, which is one of our hypotheses as to why girls seem to sustain more concussions – they report symptoms more often. That could also be why they have a prolonged recovery,” offered Dr. Loud. A main limitation of this study is it can’t overcome this reporting bias.

Dr. Loud was also concerned that girls were less likely to be removed from game play, even though they apparently sustained more concussions. “Perhaps that is because their injuries are less obvious on the field, and they are diagnosed when reported after the games.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving grants from The Football Association and National Health Service Research Scotland during the study. He also served as a nonremunerated member of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Independent Football Concussion Advisory Group and the Football Association Expert Panel on Concussion and Head Injury in Football. None of the other authors had disclosures.

A large study of adolescent soccer players in Michigan revealed key differences in concussion injury metrics among males and females, underscoring a need to develop sex-specific approaches to managing injury in the sport.

Sport-related concussion (SRC) is a specific concern in young female athletes, study authors Abigail C. Bretzin, PhD, and colleagues noted in their paper, which appears in JAMA Network Open. Previous surveillance studies on SRC at the high school and college level have reported higher rates of injury risk and longer recovery outcomes in female soccer athletes. Taking a deeper dive into these trends, the investigators explored whether sex-associated differences existed in SRC, addressing the mechanics, management, and recovery from SRC.

“This is an area that is remarkably underresearched,” William Stewart, MBChB, PhD, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview. Prior studies of males and females have shown that female axons are thinner, with fewer microtubules or internal scaffolding than male axons. This potentially increases risk of shear injury in females. Limited research has also cited differences in concussion risk across the menstrual cycle in female athletes.
 

Reporting system targets four injury areas

The investigators conducted a high school injury surveillance project in 43,741 male and 39,637 female soccer athletes participating in the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) Head Injury Reporting System. The study included students from 9th to 12th grade, spanning from the beginning of academic year 2016-2017 to the end of academic year 2018-2019. Since 2015, the state has mandated high schools to submit data to MHSAA.

MHSAA captures data on four categories: person-to-person contact, person-to-object contact, person-to-playing surface contact, or uncertain about cause of the event. Study outcomes included details regarding injury mechanism, immediate management, and return-to-play time for each documented SRC.

Investigators reported notable differences among male and female players. Documented SRC risk was 1.88 times higher among adolescent girls than boys across all academic years (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69-2.09; P < .001). They also cited inconsistencies in distribution of injury mechanisms among the sexes. Females were most likely to suffer injury from equipment contact such as heading a ball (41.9%), whereas male players commonly sustained SRC from contact with another player (48.4%). The authors suggested that “female soccer athletes have lower neck strength and girth, compared with male athletes, with these variables inversely associated with linear and rotational head acceleration after soccer ball heading.”

Boys had greater odds of immediate removal from play and but also returned to the sport 2 days sooner than girls. “The possibility exists, therefore, that this longer recovery time might, in part, be reflective of our observed differences in immediate care, in particular removal from play,” the authors wrote. Immediate removal from play was also more common in cases where an athletic trainer played a part in evaluating players for SRC.
 

Eliminating the one-size-fits-all approach

Current concussion management is based on a “one-size-fits-all” model, said Dr. Stewart. Male and female athletes are treated following a common concussion management protocol, covering concussion detection through to rehabilitation. “This model of management is based on research that is almost exclusively in male athletes.”

What the study showed is this one-size-fits-all approach may be flawed, letting down female athletes. “We should be pursuing more research in sex differences in concussion and, importantly, putting these into practice in sex-specific concussion management protocols,” he suggested.

Future studies should also look at the effects of athletic trainer employment on SRC metrics. “Although this was a large, statewide epidemiological study of reported SRC in adolescent soccer athletes, inclusive of high schools with and without access to athletic trainers, the Head Injury Reporting System did not include information on the whether there were athletic trainer services available at each school, including specific athletic training services for soccer,” wrote the investigators, in citing the study’s limitations.
 

Girls report symptoms more often

“The researchers are to be commended for taking a prospective approach to address this common observation in high school sports,” said Keith J. Loud, MD, MSc, FAAP, a sports pediatrician at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Manchester, N.H. The results are “entirely believable,” said Dr. Loud, who was not affiliated with the study. “We have long postulated differences in neurophysiology, neck strength, style of play, and tendency to report as explanations for the observation that girls in high school soccer are diagnosed with more concussions than boys.”

The findings suggest that boys play more aggressively, but sustain fewer concussions, he added. Girls in the meantime, are more likely to speak up about their injury.

“Concussion diagnosis still relies to a large degree on the athlete to report symptoms, which is one of our hypotheses as to why girls seem to sustain more concussions – they report symptoms more often. That could also be why they have a prolonged recovery,” offered Dr. Loud. A main limitation of this study is it can’t overcome this reporting bias.

Dr. Loud was also concerned that girls were less likely to be removed from game play, even though they apparently sustained more concussions. “Perhaps that is because their injuries are less obvious on the field, and they are diagnosed when reported after the games.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving grants from The Football Association and National Health Service Research Scotland during the study. He also served as a nonremunerated member of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association Independent Football Concussion Advisory Group and the Football Association Expert Panel on Concussion and Head Injury in Football. None of the other authors had disclosures.

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.