User login
Dr. Richard W. Cohen joins CPN’s Editorial Advisory Board
Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of Richard W. Cohen, MD, to its Editorial Advisory Board.
Dr. Cohen is a board-certified psychiatrist. For the last 25 years, he has been in full-time private practice in Center City Philadelphia, where he treats patients with depression, anxiety disorders, relationship problems using psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and medication management. Dr. Cohen has a special interest in sports psychology – improving the mental toughness and performance of junior, collegiate, and pro athletes.
He graduated from medical school at Temple University, Philadelphia, where he had a wonderful experience assisting the late behaviorist Joseph Wolpe, MD, in agoraphobia research.
Dr. Cohen was chief resident at Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York, and at one point held a trifaculty appointment at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, in psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology. At Jefferson, Dr. Cohen codirector of the alcohol and substance abuse education program. He also edited a textbook entitled “What a Student Should Know,” which integrated issues of alcoholism into all subjects in the medical school curriculum.
He has lectured extensively both locally and nationwide at tennis academies helping players improve their overall accomplishments. In addition, Dr. Cohen has appeared on various television shows discussing addictions, relationship issues, and sports psychiatry. Furthermore, he has published numerous articles on these topics.
Dr. Cohen was the fifth-ranked high school tennis player in the United States and he has been ranked No. 1 in both the Middle States and the country in various junior and senior age divisions. He was the captain of the University of Pennsylvania Ivy League Championship tennis team and played No. 1 on Penn’s National Intercollegiate Championship squash team. Dr. Cohen has garnered 17 National Tennis Championship Gold Balls over the years. In 2012, Dr. Cohen was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.
He lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Nancy, and they have two adult children, Josh and Julia, who are world-class tennis players.
Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of Richard W. Cohen, MD, to its Editorial Advisory Board.
Dr. Cohen is a board-certified psychiatrist. For the last 25 years, he has been in full-time private practice in Center City Philadelphia, where he treats patients with depression, anxiety disorders, relationship problems using psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and medication management. Dr. Cohen has a special interest in sports psychology – improving the mental toughness and performance of junior, collegiate, and pro athletes.
He graduated from medical school at Temple University, Philadelphia, where he had a wonderful experience assisting the late behaviorist Joseph Wolpe, MD, in agoraphobia research.
Dr. Cohen was chief resident at Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York, and at one point held a trifaculty appointment at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, in psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology. At Jefferson, Dr. Cohen codirector of the alcohol and substance abuse education program. He also edited a textbook entitled “What a Student Should Know,” which integrated issues of alcoholism into all subjects in the medical school curriculum.
He has lectured extensively both locally and nationwide at tennis academies helping players improve their overall accomplishments. In addition, Dr. Cohen has appeared on various television shows discussing addictions, relationship issues, and sports psychiatry. Furthermore, he has published numerous articles on these topics.
Dr. Cohen was the fifth-ranked high school tennis player in the United States and he has been ranked No. 1 in both the Middle States and the country in various junior and senior age divisions. He was the captain of the University of Pennsylvania Ivy League Championship tennis team and played No. 1 on Penn’s National Intercollegiate Championship squash team. Dr. Cohen has garnered 17 National Tennis Championship Gold Balls over the years. In 2012, Dr. Cohen was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.
He lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Nancy, and they have two adult children, Josh and Julia, who are world-class tennis players.
Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of Richard W. Cohen, MD, to its Editorial Advisory Board.
Dr. Cohen is a board-certified psychiatrist. For the last 25 years, he has been in full-time private practice in Center City Philadelphia, where he treats patients with depression, anxiety disorders, relationship problems using psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and medication management. Dr. Cohen has a special interest in sports psychology – improving the mental toughness and performance of junior, collegiate, and pro athletes.
He graduated from medical school at Temple University, Philadelphia, where he had a wonderful experience assisting the late behaviorist Joseph Wolpe, MD, in agoraphobia research.
Dr. Cohen was chief resident at Albert Einstein Medical Center in New York, and at one point held a trifaculty appointment at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, in psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology. At Jefferson, Dr. Cohen codirector of the alcohol and substance abuse education program. He also edited a textbook entitled “What a Student Should Know,” which integrated issues of alcoholism into all subjects in the medical school curriculum.
He has lectured extensively both locally and nationwide at tennis academies helping players improve their overall accomplishments. In addition, Dr. Cohen has appeared on various television shows discussing addictions, relationship issues, and sports psychiatry. Furthermore, he has published numerous articles on these topics.
Dr. Cohen was the fifth-ranked high school tennis player in the United States and he has been ranked No. 1 in both the Middle States and the country in various junior and senior age divisions. He was the captain of the University of Pennsylvania Ivy League Championship tennis team and played No. 1 on Penn’s National Intercollegiate Championship squash team. Dr. Cohen has garnered 17 National Tennis Championship Gold Balls over the years. In 2012, Dr. Cohen was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.
He lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Nancy, and they have two adult children, Josh and Julia, who are world-class tennis players.
Managing Moderate to Severe Asthma in Adolescents
"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.
In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.
The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.
Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.
Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.
--
Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.
In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.
The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.
Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.
Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.
--
Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.
In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.
The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.
Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.
Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.
--
Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Intervention reduced racial disparities among patients in cancer trials
, according to researchers.
The team found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse for Black versus White women with endometrial cancer who were treated at the center between 2012 and 2018. However, PFS outcomes were similar for both races among patients from the center who were enrolled in clinical trials during the same period, after the center introduced a navigation program designed to reduce racial disparities.
The findings demonstrate that health care inequities can be overcome with specific interventions aimed at improving care for Black women, said Nathaniel L. Jones, MD of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at the University of South Alabama in Mobile.
Dr. Jones presented the findings at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10910).
Rationale: Building trust, providing equitable care
Black women comprise 7% of endometrial cancer diagnoses across the United States but account for 15% of all deaths, Dr. Jones noted. Compared with White women, Black women are up to 80% more likely to die from endometrial cancer.
“Perhaps even more concerning is that endometrial cancer is one of few cancers with increasing incidence and mortality, which further exacerbates the disparities,” Dr. Jones said.
In the Deep South, which carries “an unequal burden” of endometrial cancer incidence and mortality compared with the rest of the United States, multiple additional barriers exist that further exacerbate health care inequities, Dr. Jones said.
The barriers include greater poverty, mortality, social and economic disadvantages, and mistrust in “the medical establishment” among Black patients.
“The onus is on us as providers to provide an approach to cancer care that allows our patients to trust us and provide equitable cancer care for the women we serve,” Dr. Jones said. “To that end, we sought to investigate clinical trial enrollment at our institution after the implementation of patient-based programs designed specifically to enhance minority enrollment in clinical trials. We then evaluated the impact of clinical trial enrollment and race on survival.”
A ‘multifaceted’ intervention
“An intentional, multifaceted intervention was created to address Black patient enrollment onto clinical trials,” Dr. Jones explained.
His center implemented a lay navigation program to increase trial awareness and participation among minorities, help patients understand the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation, and help patients and their families navigate the enrollment and participation processes.
Under the program, all new endometrial cancer patients were assigned a lay navigator. The program included an education component to inform patients of the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation.
Another aspect was hiring a “diverse lay navigation workforce ... that mirrored the demographics of our catchment area,” which has more than double the minority population, compared with the national average, Dr. Jones noted.
Results: Improved PFS
To evaluate the efficacy of their intervention, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 1,021 patients with endometrial cancer treated at Mitchell Cancer Institute between 2012 and 2018. There were 277 Black women and 718 White women in the overall cohort, and 23 Black women and 61 White women were enrolled in clinical trials.
After accounting for age-adjusted endometrial cancer incidence in the United States, the observed trial enrollment of Black women was statistically similar to expected enrollment (1.03-fold lower than expected). Compared with regional “Deep South” data, however, enrollment was 1.15-fold higher than expected for Black patients, Dr. Jones said.
Among all women with endometrial cancer treated at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, the median PFS was 14 months in Black women and 20 months in White women (P = .002). Among patients enrolled in clinical trials, however, the median PFS was 13 months for Black women and 14 months for White women (P = .280).
In the entire cohort, Black women had more aggressive histology, more advanced-stage disease, and a higher proportion of Medicaid or self-pay status. Among those enrolled in clinical trials, there was no difference between races in stage, grade, histology, insurance, or performance status.
The findings show that inequities in clinical trial enrollment can be overcome, and patient-based interventions can be helpful in improving enrollment of minority women, Dr. Jones concluded.
Doing better, starting small
Invited discussant Kemi M. Doll, MD, commended Dr. Jones and his colleagues for their “incredible, intervention-focused work,” but she asked: “Is this good enough?”
Analyses are needed to understand what drove the differences among trial participants versus the overall population, said Dr. Doll, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.
For example, determining whether outcomes in the trial participants were driven by better PFS among Black women or worse PFS among White women could “help to identify next steps,” Dr. Doll said.
She stressed that “everyone” can engage in local-level efforts to improve trial enrollment, equity, and outcomes.
“A powerful mantra I was exposed to several years ago regarding equity is, ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable.’ We are often paralyzed by the long-standing and deeply embedded inequities in our health care system, but we can choose to move into action by following ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable,’” Dr. Doll said. “It reminds us to start where we are..., to start now, and stop waiting for convenience because equity work is not convenient.”
The key is recognizing individual power to enact change and focusing on “what we can change and not what we can’t,” she said.
Tools are available on the national level to help facilitate clinical trial enrollment of historically excluded populations, Dr. Doll added.
She cited a report outlining strategies for accruing diverse populations in clinical trials at eight U.S. cancer centers. The report addresses development of community partnerships and community advisory boards, training in culturally competent and congruent trial design, use of lay navigation, the importance of balancing benefits of participation with patient time and risk, and invoking a sense of altruism for family and community, Dr. Doll said.
“Baking these into trial design and recruitment are known, evidence-based methods to improve enrollment of [minority] populations,” she said. “Deciding to make these design elements mandatory for trials to be approved and executed is the kind of paradigm-shifting action that is available to us now.”
Dr. Jones and Dr. Doll both reported having no disclosures.
, according to researchers.
The team found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse for Black versus White women with endometrial cancer who were treated at the center between 2012 and 2018. However, PFS outcomes were similar for both races among patients from the center who were enrolled in clinical trials during the same period, after the center introduced a navigation program designed to reduce racial disparities.
The findings demonstrate that health care inequities can be overcome with specific interventions aimed at improving care for Black women, said Nathaniel L. Jones, MD of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at the University of South Alabama in Mobile.
Dr. Jones presented the findings at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10910).
Rationale: Building trust, providing equitable care
Black women comprise 7% of endometrial cancer diagnoses across the United States but account for 15% of all deaths, Dr. Jones noted. Compared with White women, Black women are up to 80% more likely to die from endometrial cancer.
“Perhaps even more concerning is that endometrial cancer is one of few cancers with increasing incidence and mortality, which further exacerbates the disparities,” Dr. Jones said.
In the Deep South, which carries “an unequal burden” of endometrial cancer incidence and mortality compared with the rest of the United States, multiple additional barriers exist that further exacerbate health care inequities, Dr. Jones said.
The barriers include greater poverty, mortality, social and economic disadvantages, and mistrust in “the medical establishment” among Black patients.
“The onus is on us as providers to provide an approach to cancer care that allows our patients to trust us and provide equitable cancer care for the women we serve,” Dr. Jones said. “To that end, we sought to investigate clinical trial enrollment at our institution after the implementation of patient-based programs designed specifically to enhance minority enrollment in clinical trials. We then evaluated the impact of clinical trial enrollment and race on survival.”
A ‘multifaceted’ intervention
“An intentional, multifaceted intervention was created to address Black patient enrollment onto clinical trials,” Dr. Jones explained.
His center implemented a lay navigation program to increase trial awareness and participation among minorities, help patients understand the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation, and help patients and their families navigate the enrollment and participation processes.
Under the program, all new endometrial cancer patients were assigned a lay navigator. The program included an education component to inform patients of the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation.
Another aspect was hiring a “diverse lay navigation workforce ... that mirrored the demographics of our catchment area,” which has more than double the minority population, compared with the national average, Dr. Jones noted.
Results: Improved PFS
To evaluate the efficacy of their intervention, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 1,021 patients with endometrial cancer treated at Mitchell Cancer Institute between 2012 and 2018. There were 277 Black women and 718 White women in the overall cohort, and 23 Black women and 61 White women were enrolled in clinical trials.
After accounting for age-adjusted endometrial cancer incidence in the United States, the observed trial enrollment of Black women was statistically similar to expected enrollment (1.03-fold lower than expected). Compared with regional “Deep South” data, however, enrollment was 1.15-fold higher than expected for Black patients, Dr. Jones said.
Among all women with endometrial cancer treated at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, the median PFS was 14 months in Black women and 20 months in White women (P = .002). Among patients enrolled in clinical trials, however, the median PFS was 13 months for Black women and 14 months for White women (P = .280).
In the entire cohort, Black women had more aggressive histology, more advanced-stage disease, and a higher proportion of Medicaid or self-pay status. Among those enrolled in clinical trials, there was no difference between races in stage, grade, histology, insurance, or performance status.
The findings show that inequities in clinical trial enrollment can be overcome, and patient-based interventions can be helpful in improving enrollment of minority women, Dr. Jones concluded.
Doing better, starting small
Invited discussant Kemi M. Doll, MD, commended Dr. Jones and his colleagues for their “incredible, intervention-focused work,” but she asked: “Is this good enough?”
Analyses are needed to understand what drove the differences among trial participants versus the overall population, said Dr. Doll, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.
For example, determining whether outcomes in the trial participants were driven by better PFS among Black women or worse PFS among White women could “help to identify next steps,” Dr. Doll said.
She stressed that “everyone” can engage in local-level efforts to improve trial enrollment, equity, and outcomes.
“A powerful mantra I was exposed to several years ago regarding equity is, ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable.’ We are often paralyzed by the long-standing and deeply embedded inequities in our health care system, but we can choose to move into action by following ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable,’” Dr. Doll said. “It reminds us to start where we are..., to start now, and stop waiting for convenience because equity work is not convenient.”
The key is recognizing individual power to enact change and focusing on “what we can change and not what we can’t,” she said.
Tools are available on the national level to help facilitate clinical trial enrollment of historically excluded populations, Dr. Doll added.
She cited a report outlining strategies for accruing diverse populations in clinical trials at eight U.S. cancer centers. The report addresses development of community partnerships and community advisory boards, training in culturally competent and congruent trial design, use of lay navigation, the importance of balancing benefits of participation with patient time and risk, and invoking a sense of altruism for family and community, Dr. Doll said.
“Baking these into trial design and recruitment are known, evidence-based methods to improve enrollment of [minority] populations,” she said. “Deciding to make these design elements mandatory for trials to be approved and executed is the kind of paradigm-shifting action that is available to us now.”
Dr. Jones and Dr. Doll both reported having no disclosures.
, according to researchers.
The team found that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse for Black versus White women with endometrial cancer who were treated at the center between 2012 and 2018. However, PFS outcomes were similar for both races among patients from the center who were enrolled in clinical trials during the same period, after the center introduced a navigation program designed to reduce racial disparities.
The findings demonstrate that health care inequities can be overcome with specific interventions aimed at improving care for Black women, said Nathaniel L. Jones, MD of the Mitchell Cancer Institute at the University of South Alabama in Mobile.
Dr. Jones presented the findings at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10910).
Rationale: Building trust, providing equitable care
Black women comprise 7% of endometrial cancer diagnoses across the United States but account for 15% of all deaths, Dr. Jones noted. Compared with White women, Black women are up to 80% more likely to die from endometrial cancer.
“Perhaps even more concerning is that endometrial cancer is one of few cancers with increasing incidence and mortality, which further exacerbates the disparities,” Dr. Jones said.
In the Deep South, which carries “an unequal burden” of endometrial cancer incidence and mortality compared with the rest of the United States, multiple additional barriers exist that further exacerbate health care inequities, Dr. Jones said.
The barriers include greater poverty, mortality, social and economic disadvantages, and mistrust in “the medical establishment” among Black patients.
“The onus is on us as providers to provide an approach to cancer care that allows our patients to trust us and provide equitable cancer care for the women we serve,” Dr. Jones said. “To that end, we sought to investigate clinical trial enrollment at our institution after the implementation of patient-based programs designed specifically to enhance minority enrollment in clinical trials. We then evaluated the impact of clinical trial enrollment and race on survival.”
A ‘multifaceted’ intervention
“An intentional, multifaceted intervention was created to address Black patient enrollment onto clinical trials,” Dr. Jones explained.
His center implemented a lay navigation program to increase trial awareness and participation among minorities, help patients understand the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation, and help patients and their families navigate the enrollment and participation processes.
Under the program, all new endometrial cancer patients were assigned a lay navigator. The program included an education component to inform patients of the risks and benefits of clinical trial participation.
Another aspect was hiring a “diverse lay navigation workforce ... that mirrored the demographics of our catchment area,” which has more than double the minority population, compared with the national average, Dr. Jones noted.
Results: Improved PFS
To evaluate the efficacy of their intervention, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 1,021 patients with endometrial cancer treated at Mitchell Cancer Institute between 2012 and 2018. There were 277 Black women and 718 White women in the overall cohort, and 23 Black women and 61 White women were enrolled in clinical trials.
After accounting for age-adjusted endometrial cancer incidence in the United States, the observed trial enrollment of Black women was statistically similar to expected enrollment (1.03-fold lower than expected). Compared with regional “Deep South” data, however, enrollment was 1.15-fold higher than expected for Black patients, Dr. Jones said.
Among all women with endometrial cancer treated at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, the median PFS was 14 months in Black women and 20 months in White women (P = .002). Among patients enrolled in clinical trials, however, the median PFS was 13 months for Black women and 14 months for White women (P = .280).
In the entire cohort, Black women had more aggressive histology, more advanced-stage disease, and a higher proportion of Medicaid or self-pay status. Among those enrolled in clinical trials, there was no difference between races in stage, grade, histology, insurance, or performance status.
The findings show that inequities in clinical trial enrollment can be overcome, and patient-based interventions can be helpful in improving enrollment of minority women, Dr. Jones concluded.
Doing better, starting small
Invited discussant Kemi M. Doll, MD, commended Dr. Jones and his colleagues for their “incredible, intervention-focused work,” but she asked: “Is this good enough?”
Analyses are needed to understand what drove the differences among trial participants versus the overall population, said Dr. Doll, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.
For example, determining whether outcomes in the trial participants were driven by better PFS among Black women or worse PFS among White women could “help to identify next steps,” Dr. Doll said.
She stressed that “everyone” can engage in local-level efforts to improve trial enrollment, equity, and outcomes.
“A powerful mantra I was exposed to several years ago regarding equity is, ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable.’ We are often paralyzed by the long-standing and deeply embedded inequities in our health care system, but we can choose to move into action by following ‘Here. Now. Small. Doable,’” Dr. Doll said. “It reminds us to start where we are..., to start now, and stop waiting for convenience because equity work is not convenient.”
The key is recognizing individual power to enact change and focusing on “what we can change and not what we can’t,” she said.
Tools are available on the national level to help facilitate clinical trial enrollment of historically excluded populations, Dr. Doll added.
She cited a report outlining strategies for accruing diverse populations in clinical trials at eight U.S. cancer centers. The report addresses development of community partnerships and community advisory boards, training in culturally competent and congruent trial design, use of lay navigation, the importance of balancing benefits of participation with patient time and risk, and invoking a sense of altruism for family and community, Dr. Doll said.
“Baking these into trial design and recruitment are known, evidence-based methods to improve enrollment of [minority] populations,” she said. “Deciding to make these design elements mandatory for trials to be approved and executed is the kind of paradigm-shifting action that is available to us now.”
Dr. Jones and Dr. Doll both reported having no disclosures.
FROM SGO 2021
1 in 3 on levothyroxine take meds that interfere with thyroid tests
, potentially compromising treatment decisions, new research shows.
“We know from previous studies that thyroid hormone use is common in older adults and that there are a multitude of medications that can interfere with thyroid function tests in different ways,” senior author Maria Papaleontiou, MD, told Medscape Medical News.
“However, to our knowledge, the extent of concurrent use of thyroid hormone and interfering medications in older adults, age 65 years and older, has not been previously explored,” added Dr. Papaleontiou, of the Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The findings were presented as a poster during virtual ENDO 2021, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting.
Commenting on the study, Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said: “It is important for clinicians to be aware of various interactions and interferences of medications affecting the accuracy of thyroid function tests.”
“If patients are not able to discontinue the medications shortly before the bloodwork, the clinicians may consider ordering different thyroid tests or assays that avoid the interferences,” he told Medscape Medical News.
32% of patients taking meds that could interfere with tests
In evaluating data on 538,137 patients treated with thyroid hormones from the Corporate Data Warehouse of the Veterans Health Administration, spanning 2004-2017, first author Rachel Beeson, MD, and colleagues with the University of Michigan found most patients in the study were men (96.5%), White (77.1%), and had two or more comorbidities (62.6%).
Of this total, 170,261 (31.6%) patients treated with thyroid hormones, over a median follow-up of 56 months, were taking at least one drug that could potentially interfere with thyroid function tests.
Among the drugs with potential thyroid test interference, about 28% of patients were taking prednisone or prednisolone, 8% were taking amiodarone, and 1.42% were taking phenytoin. Other reported drugs that could potentially interfere included carbamazepine (0.91%), phenobarbital (0.15%), lithium (0.40%), and tamoxifen (0.11%).
Multivariate analysis showed that characteristics associated with those most likely to have concurrent medication use included non-Whites (OR, 1.18 vs Whites), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.11 vs non-Hispanic), female sex (OR 1.12 vs males), and presence of comorbidities (eg, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 2, OR, 2.47 vs score of 0).
Meanwhile, older patients age 85 years and over had a lower likelihood of concurrent medications interfering with thyroid tests (OR, 0.47 vs age 65-74 years).
The findings are concerning given the wide use of levothyroxine to treat hypothyroidism, which is the most widely prescribed drug in the United States.
“Our findings not only highlight the complexity of thyroid hormone management in older adults in the context of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, but they also draw attention to vulnerable groups for this practice, which included female patients, non-Whites, patients of Hispanic ethnicity, and patients with comorbidities,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
Nature of interference possibilities varies
Medications or supplements can interfere with thyroid function tests in a variety of ways, she explained. “Some medications could lead to a decrease in the absorption of levothyroxine, others may affect how well the pill dissolves.”
In addition, certain medications can affect the circulation of thyroid hormone in the blood and how it binds with proteins, or they can lead to decreasing thyroid hormone levels due to a variety of interactions.
And in contrast, “What is even more challenging is that some medications or supplements may appear to affect thyroid function based on lab tests when in reality they don’t actually affect thyroid function and may lead to dose adjustments unnecessarily,” Dr. Papaleontiou noted.
Recommendations to counter interference
Current recommendations to try to counter the effects of polypharmacy on thyroid treatment include advising patients to take thyroid hormones on an empty stomach at least 30-60 minutes prior to eating for optimal absorption.
If the patient is taking medications known to interfere with absorption of thyroid hormones, the recommendation is to space those out by at least 4 hours.
“The big challenge in older adults is that many of them do experience polypharmacy, being at risk for multiple drug-drug interactions,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
“Physicians and patients should be vigilant and communicate closely every time there is initiation of a new medication or supplement to consider whether there may be interference.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoang has reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, potentially compromising treatment decisions, new research shows.
“We know from previous studies that thyroid hormone use is common in older adults and that there are a multitude of medications that can interfere with thyroid function tests in different ways,” senior author Maria Papaleontiou, MD, told Medscape Medical News.
“However, to our knowledge, the extent of concurrent use of thyroid hormone and interfering medications in older adults, age 65 years and older, has not been previously explored,” added Dr. Papaleontiou, of the Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The findings were presented as a poster during virtual ENDO 2021, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting.
Commenting on the study, Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said: “It is important for clinicians to be aware of various interactions and interferences of medications affecting the accuracy of thyroid function tests.”
“If patients are not able to discontinue the medications shortly before the bloodwork, the clinicians may consider ordering different thyroid tests or assays that avoid the interferences,” he told Medscape Medical News.
32% of patients taking meds that could interfere with tests
In evaluating data on 538,137 patients treated with thyroid hormones from the Corporate Data Warehouse of the Veterans Health Administration, spanning 2004-2017, first author Rachel Beeson, MD, and colleagues with the University of Michigan found most patients in the study were men (96.5%), White (77.1%), and had two or more comorbidities (62.6%).
Of this total, 170,261 (31.6%) patients treated with thyroid hormones, over a median follow-up of 56 months, were taking at least one drug that could potentially interfere with thyroid function tests.
Among the drugs with potential thyroid test interference, about 28% of patients were taking prednisone or prednisolone, 8% were taking amiodarone, and 1.42% were taking phenytoin. Other reported drugs that could potentially interfere included carbamazepine (0.91%), phenobarbital (0.15%), lithium (0.40%), and tamoxifen (0.11%).
Multivariate analysis showed that characteristics associated with those most likely to have concurrent medication use included non-Whites (OR, 1.18 vs Whites), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.11 vs non-Hispanic), female sex (OR 1.12 vs males), and presence of comorbidities (eg, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 2, OR, 2.47 vs score of 0).
Meanwhile, older patients age 85 years and over had a lower likelihood of concurrent medications interfering with thyroid tests (OR, 0.47 vs age 65-74 years).
The findings are concerning given the wide use of levothyroxine to treat hypothyroidism, which is the most widely prescribed drug in the United States.
“Our findings not only highlight the complexity of thyroid hormone management in older adults in the context of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, but they also draw attention to vulnerable groups for this practice, which included female patients, non-Whites, patients of Hispanic ethnicity, and patients with comorbidities,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
Nature of interference possibilities varies
Medications or supplements can interfere with thyroid function tests in a variety of ways, she explained. “Some medications could lead to a decrease in the absorption of levothyroxine, others may affect how well the pill dissolves.”
In addition, certain medications can affect the circulation of thyroid hormone in the blood and how it binds with proteins, or they can lead to decreasing thyroid hormone levels due to a variety of interactions.
And in contrast, “What is even more challenging is that some medications or supplements may appear to affect thyroid function based on lab tests when in reality they don’t actually affect thyroid function and may lead to dose adjustments unnecessarily,” Dr. Papaleontiou noted.
Recommendations to counter interference
Current recommendations to try to counter the effects of polypharmacy on thyroid treatment include advising patients to take thyroid hormones on an empty stomach at least 30-60 minutes prior to eating for optimal absorption.
If the patient is taking medications known to interfere with absorption of thyroid hormones, the recommendation is to space those out by at least 4 hours.
“The big challenge in older adults is that many of them do experience polypharmacy, being at risk for multiple drug-drug interactions,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
“Physicians and patients should be vigilant and communicate closely every time there is initiation of a new medication or supplement to consider whether there may be interference.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoang has reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, potentially compromising treatment decisions, new research shows.
“We know from previous studies that thyroid hormone use is common in older adults and that there are a multitude of medications that can interfere with thyroid function tests in different ways,” senior author Maria Papaleontiou, MD, told Medscape Medical News.
“However, to our knowledge, the extent of concurrent use of thyroid hormone and interfering medications in older adults, age 65 years and older, has not been previously explored,” added Dr. Papaleontiou, of the Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The findings were presented as a poster during virtual ENDO 2021, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting.
Commenting on the study, Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said: “It is important for clinicians to be aware of various interactions and interferences of medications affecting the accuracy of thyroid function tests.”
“If patients are not able to discontinue the medications shortly before the bloodwork, the clinicians may consider ordering different thyroid tests or assays that avoid the interferences,” he told Medscape Medical News.
32% of patients taking meds that could interfere with tests
In evaluating data on 538,137 patients treated with thyroid hormones from the Corporate Data Warehouse of the Veterans Health Administration, spanning 2004-2017, first author Rachel Beeson, MD, and colleagues with the University of Michigan found most patients in the study were men (96.5%), White (77.1%), and had two or more comorbidities (62.6%).
Of this total, 170,261 (31.6%) patients treated with thyroid hormones, over a median follow-up of 56 months, were taking at least one drug that could potentially interfere with thyroid function tests.
Among the drugs with potential thyroid test interference, about 28% of patients were taking prednisone or prednisolone, 8% were taking amiodarone, and 1.42% were taking phenytoin. Other reported drugs that could potentially interfere included carbamazepine (0.91%), phenobarbital (0.15%), lithium (0.40%), and tamoxifen (0.11%).
Multivariate analysis showed that characteristics associated with those most likely to have concurrent medication use included non-Whites (OR, 1.18 vs Whites), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.11 vs non-Hispanic), female sex (OR 1.12 vs males), and presence of comorbidities (eg, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 2, OR, 2.47 vs score of 0).
Meanwhile, older patients age 85 years and over had a lower likelihood of concurrent medications interfering with thyroid tests (OR, 0.47 vs age 65-74 years).
The findings are concerning given the wide use of levothyroxine to treat hypothyroidism, which is the most widely prescribed drug in the United States.
“Our findings not only highlight the complexity of thyroid hormone management in older adults in the context of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, but they also draw attention to vulnerable groups for this practice, which included female patients, non-Whites, patients of Hispanic ethnicity, and patients with comorbidities,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
Nature of interference possibilities varies
Medications or supplements can interfere with thyroid function tests in a variety of ways, she explained. “Some medications could lead to a decrease in the absorption of levothyroxine, others may affect how well the pill dissolves.”
In addition, certain medications can affect the circulation of thyroid hormone in the blood and how it binds with proteins, or they can lead to decreasing thyroid hormone levels due to a variety of interactions.
And in contrast, “What is even more challenging is that some medications or supplements may appear to affect thyroid function based on lab tests when in reality they don’t actually affect thyroid function and may lead to dose adjustments unnecessarily,” Dr. Papaleontiou noted.
Recommendations to counter interference
Current recommendations to try to counter the effects of polypharmacy on thyroid treatment include advising patients to take thyroid hormones on an empty stomach at least 30-60 minutes prior to eating for optimal absorption.
If the patient is taking medications known to interfere with absorption of thyroid hormones, the recommendation is to space those out by at least 4 hours.
“The big challenge in older adults is that many of them do experience polypharmacy, being at risk for multiple drug-drug interactions,” Dr. Papaleontiou said.
“Physicians and patients should be vigilant and communicate closely every time there is initiation of a new medication or supplement to consider whether there may be interference.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoang has reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Success in achondroplasia spurs testing vosoritide in more growth disorders
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Imaging alternative to AVS could boost detection of primary aldosteronism
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
A noninvasive imaging method for identifying whether the source of a patient’s primary aldosteronism is from unilateral or bilateral adrenal adenomas worked as well as the standard method, invasive adrenal vein sampling, in a head-to-head comparison with 143 patients.
This noninvasive alternative, which also does not require the substantial technical expertise that AVS demands, should make assessment of adenoma laterality in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) much more widely available and accessible, predicted Dr. Wu, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London.
“It will allow more places to do this, and I think it will definitely allow more patients to be diagnosed” with PA from a unilateral source. AVS “is a real bottleneck,” she said. “We hope metomidate, or molecular imaging using other selective radiotracers, will enable many more patients to be diagnosed and appropriately managed.” Creating new diagnostic options for patients with PA and potentially increasing the number of these patients who are surgical candidates “is the aim of this study.”
Patients with PA develop a curable form of hypertension if their excess aldosterone can be neutralized with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), or even more definitively by surgical removal of the adrenal aldosteronoma generating the hormonal excess as long as the adenoma is unilateral. Conventional imaging of the adrenals with CT or MRI has proven unreliable for identifying adrenal nodules noninvasively, which has made the invasive and technically challenging standard option of AVS the only game in town.
But some endocrinologists caution that the results from this one study do not suffice to make 11C-metomidate-based PET-CT imaging a widely used alternative.
‘This is a first step.’
“This study is a first step. It will take lots more data for endocrinologists to buy into a scan over AVS,” commented David A. D’Alessio, MD, professor and chief of the division of endocrinology and metabolism at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
But Dr. D’Alessio also acknowledged the clear benefits from a safe and effective alternative to AVS.
“A reliable, less invasive, and less technical means of lateralizing excess aldosterone production would increase the number of people [with a unilateral PA source] going to surgery. The reality is that, if you are not a patient at the Mayo Clinic . . .or the National Institutes of Health, then AVS is a bit of crap shoot” that is very operator and institution dependent for its accuracy, Dr. D’Alessio said in an interview.
Metomidate specifically binds to key enzymes of the adrenal corticosteroid biosynthetic pathway, making it a precise targeting agent for a radioactive tag as documented almost a decade ago. One limitation is that this radiotracer labeling of metomidate has a 20-minute half life, which means it must be produced on site, thereby making the technology out of reach for locations that can’t set up this capability.
MATCHing imaging against AVS
To test the clinical utility of metomidate-based PET-CT directly against AVS, Dr. Wu and her associates enrolled 143 adults with confirmed PA and hypertension at two centers in London and one in Cambridge, England. The MATCH study cohort averaged 53 years of age; two-thirds were men, 58% were White, and 30% were Black. Their median blood pressure was 147/91 mm Hg, and they were maintained on a median of two antihypertensive drugs.
The researchers assessed every patient with both the imaging method and AVS, performed in random order and blindly scored. They then began each patient on a 1-month regimen with an MRA (usually spironolactone but eplerenone [Inspra] was also an option) to test the responsiveness of each patient’s hypertension to this drug class and to gauge their likely response to adrenalectomy. After the MRA test, the researchers assessed the lateralization tests and determined that 78 patients were appropriate candidates for unilateral adrenalectomy while the remaining 65 patients were not and continued on the MRA regimen. They recommended surgery if patients were clear positives by AVS, by PET-CT imaging, or both.
The study had four primary outcomes to assess the ability of the two diagnostic methods to predict the success of surgery based on four increasingly stringent postsurgical criteria calculated in hierarchical sequence: Partial or complete biochemical success, complete biochemical success, partial or complete clinical success (partial meaning any significant reduction in blood pressure), or complete clinical success (systolic pressure reduced to less than 135 mm Hg). Only one of the 78 patients treated with surgery failed to achieve at least a partial biochemical response.
For each of the four metrics, 11C-metomidate PET-CT produced point estimates of diagnostic accuracy that consistently edged out AVS. While these advantages were not large enough to meet the prespecified threshold for proving superiority, they comfortably showed the noninferiority of this imaging method compared with AVS.
For example, the PET-CT method had 43.6% accuracy for predicting a clinical cure, compared with 39.7% accuracy for AVS. For complete biochemical cure, imaging had 68.8% accuracy, compared with 62.3% for AVS, Dr. Wu reported.
Another notable finding from the study was how strongly a robust blood pressure response to spironolactone predicted the clinical outcome from surgery. Patients whose systolic blood pressure fell below 135 mm Hg on MRA treatment had a nearly 18-fold higher rate of achieving a complete clinical cure following surgery compared with patients who did not have as dramatic a blood pressure response to MRA treatment.
Woefully low rates of PA assessment
But regardless of the success that PET-CT imaging has for identifying surgical candidates, the first step is to identify patients with PA, a diagnosis that’s woefully underperformed worldwide. One example: A separate report at ENDO 2021 retrospectively reviewed nearly 12,000 patients with hypertension and an indication of PA, such as treatment-resistant hypertension or early-onset hypertension, and managed at either of two university outpatient clinics in Michigan during 2010-2019. The report documented that 3% underwent PA assessment.
Diagnosis of patients with PA “is a major problem,” noted Dr. D’Alessio. “I think of PA as an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, with a huge impact on morbidity and mortality. Any advance in this area is likely to be useful.” But, he added, “I’m dubious whether this [new imaging approach] will increase diagnosis of PA.” What’s needed is “getting more primary care physicians to do more screening” for PA among their patients with hypertension and a suggestion of a PA cause.
“Surgical cures are glamorous, but medical management is also very effective, and we have good, inexpensive drugs to do this,” the MRAs, Dr. D’Alessio said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wu and her coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. D’Alessio has been a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, a consultant to Intarcia and Lilly, and has received research funding from Lilly and Merck.
FROM ENDO 2021
Delaying surgery didn’t impact survival in early-stage cervical cancer
in the National Cancer Database.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 85.7% among women who had radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy within 4 weeks of diagnosis, 86.6% among those who had the same surgery 4-8 weeks after diagnosis, and 89.6% among those who had surgery 8-12 weeks after diagnosis (P = .12).
“For patients with clinical stage I cervical carcinoma undergoing radical hysterectomy, we found no evidence of a detrimental effect of waiting time (up to 12 weeks from diagnosis) on overall survival,” the study investigators reported in a poster at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
The investigators looked at the issue of surgical wait times because of surgery delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to investigator Dimitrios Nasioudis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to see if there was a real impact in the survival of patients,” Dr. Nasioudis said in an interview. He added that “many times, there is a question of when to perform surgery,” especially when patients need medical optimization.
Dr. Nasioudis called the findings “reassuring” and said “waiting up to 3 or 4 months is reasonable.”
Still, the investigators plan to validate the results with more granular patient-level institutional data, he said. Given the limits of the database, there was no information on tumor relapse or cause of death and no central pathology review.
Study details
The study included 4,782 patients who underwent primary radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy. Patients had clinical stage I adenocarcinoma, squamous, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with no history of another tumor or other cervical surgery.
The median time to surgery was 34 days across the study population. Patients were divided into three groups according to the timing of their surgery:
- Group 1 included 1,823 (38.1%) patients who had surgery less than 4 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 2 included 2,207 (46.2%) patients who had surgery 4-8 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 3 included 752 (15.7%) patients who had surgery 8-12 weeks from diagnosis.
Patients in group 1 had a higher rate of positive lymph nodes, compared with patients in groups 2 and 3 (18.4%, 15.6%, and 14.7%, respectively; P = .014). Patients in group 1 also had a higher incidence of lymphovascular space invasion (42.1%, 38.1%, and 33%; P = .007) and a higher rate of positive surgical margins (6.3%, 5.2%, and 3.9%; P = .047).
Group 1 patients “had more aggressive features,” which could explain why they had surgery within a month, Dr. Nasioudis said.
Patients in groups 3 and 2 were more likely to have government insurance, compared with patients in group 1 (35.6%, 31.6%, and 24.6%, respectively P < .001). Group 3 patients were more likely than those in groups 2 and 1 to have comorbidities (14.2%, 11.6%, and 10.5%; P = .29).
However, there were no survival differences between groups in a multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, which included tumor size, histology and extension, status of lymph nodes, receipt of radiotherapy, patient age, insurance, race, and comorbidities. Furthermore, in a stratified analysis based on tumor extent, the timing of surgery had no impact on survival.
Dr. Nasioudis said he suspects access to care was an issue for some women, and there were likely delays for medical optimization.
Access to gynecologic oncology services at the University of Pennsylvania is “pretty easy,” he said, so delays are usually related to medical optimization, but that’s not always the case in underserved areas of the United States.
There was no funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
in the National Cancer Database.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 85.7% among women who had radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy within 4 weeks of diagnosis, 86.6% among those who had the same surgery 4-8 weeks after diagnosis, and 89.6% among those who had surgery 8-12 weeks after diagnosis (P = .12).
“For patients with clinical stage I cervical carcinoma undergoing radical hysterectomy, we found no evidence of a detrimental effect of waiting time (up to 12 weeks from diagnosis) on overall survival,” the study investigators reported in a poster at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
The investigators looked at the issue of surgical wait times because of surgery delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to investigator Dimitrios Nasioudis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to see if there was a real impact in the survival of patients,” Dr. Nasioudis said in an interview. He added that “many times, there is a question of when to perform surgery,” especially when patients need medical optimization.
Dr. Nasioudis called the findings “reassuring” and said “waiting up to 3 or 4 months is reasonable.”
Still, the investigators plan to validate the results with more granular patient-level institutional data, he said. Given the limits of the database, there was no information on tumor relapse or cause of death and no central pathology review.
Study details
The study included 4,782 patients who underwent primary radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy. Patients had clinical stage I adenocarcinoma, squamous, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with no history of another tumor or other cervical surgery.
The median time to surgery was 34 days across the study population. Patients were divided into three groups according to the timing of their surgery:
- Group 1 included 1,823 (38.1%) patients who had surgery less than 4 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 2 included 2,207 (46.2%) patients who had surgery 4-8 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 3 included 752 (15.7%) patients who had surgery 8-12 weeks from diagnosis.
Patients in group 1 had a higher rate of positive lymph nodes, compared with patients in groups 2 and 3 (18.4%, 15.6%, and 14.7%, respectively; P = .014). Patients in group 1 also had a higher incidence of lymphovascular space invasion (42.1%, 38.1%, and 33%; P = .007) and a higher rate of positive surgical margins (6.3%, 5.2%, and 3.9%; P = .047).
Group 1 patients “had more aggressive features,” which could explain why they had surgery within a month, Dr. Nasioudis said.
Patients in groups 3 and 2 were more likely to have government insurance, compared with patients in group 1 (35.6%, 31.6%, and 24.6%, respectively P < .001). Group 3 patients were more likely than those in groups 2 and 1 to have comorbidities (14.2%, 11.6%, and 10.5%; P = .29).
However, there were no survival differences between groups in a multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, which included tumor size, histology and extension, status of lymph nodes, receipt of radiotherapy, patient age, insurance, race, and comorbidities. Furthermore, in a stratified analysis based on tumor extent, the timing of surgery had no impact on survival.
Dr. Nasioudis said he suspects access to care was an issue for some women, and there were likely delays for medical optimization.
Access to gynecologic oncology services at the University of Pennsylvania is “pretty easy,” he said, so delays are usually related to medical optimization, but that’s not always the case in underserved areas of the United States.
There was no funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
in the National Cancer Database.
The 5-year overall survival rate was 85.7% among women who had radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy within 4 weeks of diagnosis, 86.6% among those who had the same surgery 4-8 weeks after diagnosis, and 89.6% among those who had surgery 8-12 weeks after diagnosis (P = .12).
“For patients with clinical stage I cervical carcinoma undergoing radical hysterectomy, we found no evidence of a detrimental effect of waiting time (up to 12 weeks from diagnosis) on overall survival,” the study investigators reported in a poster at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
The investigators looked at the issue of surgical wait times because of surgery delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to investigator Dimitrios Nasioudis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“We wanted to see if there was a real impact in the survival of patients,” Dr. Nasioudis said in an interview. He added that “many times, there is a question of when to perform surgery,” especially when patients need medical optimization.
Dr. Nasioudis called the findings “reassuring” and said “waiting up to 3 or 4 months is reasonable.”
Still, the investigators plan to validate the results with more granular patient-level institutional data, he said. Given the limits of the database, there was no information on tumor relapse or cause of death and no central pathology review.
Study details
The study included 4,782 patients who underwent primary radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy. Patients had clinical stage I adenocarcinoma, squamous, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with no history of another tumor or other cervical surgery.
The median time to surgery was 34 days across the study population. Patients were divided into three groups according to the timing of their surgery:
- Group 1 included 1,823 (38.1%) patients who had surgery less than 4 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 2 included 2,207 (46.2%) patients who had surgery 4-8 weeks from diagnosis.
- Group 3 included 752 (15.7%) patients who had surgery 8-12 weeks from diagnosis.
Patients in group 1 had a higher rate of positive lymph nodes, compared with patients in groups 2 and 3 (18.4%, 15.6%, and 14.7%, respectively; P = .014). Patients in group 1 also had a higher incidence of lymphovascular space invasion (42.1%, 38.1%, and 33%; P = .007) and a higher rate of positive surgical margins (6.3%, 5.2%, and 3.9%; P = .047).
Group 1 patients “had more aggressive features,” which could explain why they had surgery within a month, Dr. Nasioudis said.
Patients in groups 3 and 2 were more likely to have government insurance, compared with patients in group 1 (35.6%, 31.6%, and 24.6%, respectively P < .001). Group 3 patients were more likely than those in groups 2 and 1 to have comorbidities (14.2%, 11.6%, and 10.5%; P = .29).
However, there were no survival differences between groups in a multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, which included tumor size, histology and extension, status of lymph nodes, receipt of radiotherapy, patient age, insurance, race, and comorbidities. Furthermore, in a stratified analysis based on tumor extent, the timing of surgery had no impact on survival.
Dr. Nasioudis said he suspects access to care was an issue for some women, and there were likely delays for medical optimization.
Access to gynecologic oncology services at the University of Pennsylvania is “pretty easy,” he said, so delays are usually related to medical optimization, but that’s not always the case in underserved areas of the United States.
There was no funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
FROM SGO 2021
Rucaparib extends PFS in BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, with an exception
Investigator-assessed PFS in both an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and an efficacy analysis that excluded patients with BRCA reversion mutations was 7.4 months in the rucaparib arm, compared with 5.7 months in patients who received either platinum-based chemotherapy or weekly paclitaxel.
Among the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, however, investigator-assessed PFS was 2.9 months with rucaparib and 5.5 months with chemotherapy.
Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff in September 2020.
“Although the numbers are very small, the results suggest that presence of a BRCA reversion mutation may predict a reduced benefit from rucaparib,” said Rebecca Kristeleit, MBChB, PhD, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London.
She presented the findings from ARIEL4 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11479).
Invited discussant Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, commented that the “BRCA reversion mutation data from ARIEL4 is intriguing. Strategies to overcome and better understand this type of resistance mechanism are needed.”
Study rationale and details
Rucaparib is approved as monotherapy for patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer who have received at least two prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. The approval was based on results of two phase 1/2 studies. ARIEL4 is a phase 3 confirmatory study, designed in consultation with both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.
Women with relapsed, high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations were eligible for enrollment in ARIEL4. The patients had to have received at least two lines of chemotherapy, including at least one platinum-based regimen, with no prior PARP inhibitor or single-agent paclitaxel treatment.
Overall, 95% of patients had epithelial ovarian cancer, 3% had fallopian tube cancer, and 2% had primary peritoneal cancer. About 90% of cancers were serous in histology. Most patients (84%) had germline BRCA mutations, 16% had somatic mutations, and the status was unknown in the remaining patients.
Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive rucaparib at 600 mg twice daily (n = 233) or chemotherapy (n = 116), stratified by platinum sensitivity status. Patients assigned to chemotherapy whose disease was considered platinum resistant or partially platinum sensitive were assigned to weekly paclitaxel. Patients with fully platinum-sensitive disease were assigned to platinum-based single-agent or doublet chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were 28 days.
On radiologically confirmed disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients assigned to chemotherapy had the option to cross over to the rucaparib arm. The follow-up portion of the study began 28 days after the last treatment dose, with visits every 8 weeks thereafter.
Baseline characteristics in the ITT population were similar between arms. There were 13 patients in the rucaparib arm and 10 in the chemotherapy arm who had BRCA reversion mutations and were excluded from the efficacy population.
Efficacy and safety
Investigator-assessed PFS in the efficacy population was a median of 7.4 months with rucaparib and 5.7 months with chemotherapy, translating to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 (P = .001). In the ITT population, the respective median PFS intervals were identical, although with a slightly less favorable HR of 0.67 (P = .002). In the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, the median PFS was worse with rucaparib, at 2.9 months, compared with 5.5 months for chemotherapy. This translated to a HR of 2.77, although the 95% confidence interval was wide and crossed 1, likely due to the small sample size.
Among patients who had measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate in the efficacy population was 40.3% with rucaparib and 32.3% with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .13). The overall response data were similar in the ITT population (37.9% and 30.2%, respectively).
In the efficacy population, the duration of response was significantly longer in the rucaparib arm, at a median of 9.4 months versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98). The respective median response durations were identical in the ITT population, but the HR was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93).
In both the efficacy and ITT populations, global health status was virtually identical and unchanged from baseline in both treatment arms through cycle 7.
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more frequent with rucaparib. The most common TEAEs in the rucaparib and chemotherapy arms, respectively, were anemia/decreased hemoglobin (53.9% and 31.9%), nausea (53.4% and 31.9%), asthenia/fatigue (49.6% and 44.2%), ALT/AST increase (34.5% and 11.5%), and vomiting (34.1% and 16.8%).
In all, 8.2% of patients in the rucaparib arm and 12.4% of those in the chemotherapy arm discontinued therapy due to TEAEs.
Four patients in the rucaparib arm developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia – one during treatment and three during follow-up. There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in patients who received chemotherapy.
“Data from ARIEL4 fits the paradigm that single-agent activity of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated, recurrent ovarian cancer may be comparable to chemotherapy, and may, at times, be superior, depending on the study population, trial design, and treatment for control patients,” Dr. Matulonis said.
The study was funded by Clovis Oncology. Dr. Kristeleit disclosed relationships with Clovis, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Matulonis disclosed relationships with Novartis, Merck, and Immunogen.
Investigator-assessed PFS in both an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and an efficacy analysis that excluded patients with BRCA reversion mutations was 7.4 months in the rucaparib arm, compared with 5.7 months in patients who received either platinum-based chemotherapy or weekly paclitaxel.
Among the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, however, investigator-assessed PFS was 2.9 months with rucaparib and 5.5 months with chemotherapy.
Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff in September 2020.
“Although the numbers are very small, the results suggest that presence of a BRCA reversion mutation may predict a reduced benefit from rucaparib,” said Rebecca Kristeleit, MBChB, PhD, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London.
She presented the findings from ARIEL4 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11479).
Invited discussant Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, commented that the “BRCA reversion mutation data from ARIEL4 is intriguing. Strategies to overcome and better understand this type of resistance mechanism are needed.”
Study rationale and details
Rucaparib is approved as monotherapy for patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer who have received at least two prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. The approval was based on results of two phase 1/2 studies. ARIEL4 is a phase 3 confirmatory study, designed in consultation with both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.
Women with relapsed, high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations were eligible for enrollment in ARIEL4. The patients had to have received at least two lines of chemotherapy, including at least one platinum-based regimen, with no prior PARP inhibitor or single-agent paclitaxel treatment.
Overall, 95% of patients had epithelial ovarian cancer, 3% had fallopian tube cancer, and 2% had primary peritoneal cancer. About 90% of cancers were serous in histology. Most patients (84%) had germline BRCA mutations, 16% had somatic mutations, and the status was unknown in the remaining patients.
Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive rucaparib at 600 mg twice daily (n = 233) or chemotherapy (n = 116), stratified by platinum sensitivity status. Patients assigned to chemotherapy whose disease was considered platinum resistant or partially platinum sensitive were assigned to weekly paclitaxel. Patients with fully platinum-sensitive disease were assigned to platinum-based single-agent or doublet chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were 28 days.
On radiologically confirmed disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients assigned to chemotherapy had the option to cross over to the rucaparib arm. The follow-up portion of the study began 28 days after the last treatment dose, with visits every 8 weeks thereafter.
Baseline characteristics in the ITT population were similar between arms. There were 13 patients in the rucaparib arm and 10 in the chemotherapy arm who had BRCA reversion mutations and were excluded from the efficacy population.
Efficacy and safety
Investigator-assessed PFS in the efficacy population was a median of 7.4 months with rucaparib and 5.7 months with chemotherapy, translating to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 (P = .001). In the ITT population, the respective median PFS intervals were identical, although with a slightly less favorable HR of 0.67 (P = .002). In the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, the median PFS was worse with rucaparib, at 2.9 months, compared with 5.5 months for chemotherapy. This translated to a HR of 2.77, although the 95% confidence interval was wide and crossed 1, likely due to the small sample size.
Among patients who had measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate in the efficacy population was 40.3% with rucaparib and 32.3% with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .13). The overall response data were similar in the ITT population (37.9% and 30.2%, respectively).
In the efficacy population, the duration of response was significantly longer in the rucaparib arm, at a median of 9.4 months versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98). The respective median response durations were identical in the ITT population, but the HR was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93).
In both the efficacy and ITT populations, global health status was virtually identical and unchanged from baseline in both treatment arms through cycle 7.
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more frequent with rucaparib. The most common TEAEs in the rucaparib and chemotherapy arms, respectively, were anemia/decreased hemoglobin (53.9% and 31.9%), nausea (53.4% and 31.9%), asthenia/fatigue (49.6% and 44.2%), ALT/AST increase (34.5% and 11.5%), and vomiting (34.1% and 16.8%).
In all, 8.2% of patients in the rucaparib arm and 12.4% of those in the chemotherapy arm discontinued therapy due to TEAEs.
Four patients in the rucaparib arm developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia – one during treatment and three during follow-up. There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in patients who received chemotherapy.
“Data from ARIEL4 fits the paradigm that single-agent activity of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated, recurrent ovarian cancer may be comparable to chemotherapy, and may, at times, be superior, depending on the study population, trial design, and treatment for control patients,” Dr. Matulonis said.
The study was funded by Clovis Oncology. Dr. Kristeleit disclosed relationships with Clovis, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Matulonis disclosed relationships with Novartis, Merck, and Immunogen.
Investigator-assessed PFS in both an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and an efficacy analysis that excluded patients with BRCA reversion mutations was 7.4 months in the rucaparib arm, compared with 5.7 months in patients who received either platinum-based chemotherapy or weekly paclitaxel.
Among the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, however, investigator-assessed PFS was 2.9 months with rucaparib and 5.5 months with chemotherapy.
Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff in September 2020.
“Although the numbers are very small, the results suggest that presence of a BRCA reversion mutation may predict a reduced benefit from rucaparib,” said Rebecca Kristeleit, MBChB, PhD, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London.
She presented the findings from ARIEL4 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11479).
Invited discussant Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, commented that the “BRCA reversion mutation data from ARIEL4 is intriguing. Strategies to overcome and better understand this type of resistance mechanism are needed.”
Study rationale and details
Rucaparib is approved as monotherapy for patients with BRCA-mutated, relapsed ovarian cancer who have received at least two prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. The approval was based on results of two phase 1/2 studies. ARIEL4 is a phase 3 confirmatory study, designed in consultation with both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.
Women with relapsed, high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations were eligible for enrollment in ARIEL4. The patients had to have received at least two lines of chemotherapy, including at least one platinum-based regimen, with no prior PARP inhibitor or single-agent paclitaxel treatment.
Overall, 95% of patients had epithelial ovarian cancer, 3% had fallopian tube cancer, and 2% had primary peritoneal cancer. About 90% of cancers were serous in histology. Most patients (84%) had germline BRCA mutations, 16% had somatic mutations, and the status was unknown in the remaining patients.
Patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive rucaparib at 600 mg twice daily (n = 233) or chemotherapy (n = 116), stratified by platinum sensitivity status. Patients assigned to chemotherapy whose disease was considered platinum resistant or partially platinum sensitive were assigned to weekly paclitaxel. Patients with fully platinum-sensitive disease were assigned to platinum-based single-agent or doublet chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were 28 days.
On radiologically confirmed disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients assigned to chemotherapy had the option to cross over to the rucaparib arm. The follow-up portion of the study began 28 days after the last treatment dose, with visits every 8 weeks thereafter.
Baseline characteristics in the ITT population were similar between arms. There were 13 patients in the rucaparib arm and 10 in the chemotherapy arm who had BRCA reversion mutations and were excluded from the efficacy population.
Efficacy and safety
Investigator-assessed PFS in the efficacy population was a median of 7.4 months with rucaparib and 5.7 months with chemotherapy, translating to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 (P = .001). In the ITT population, the respective median PFS intervals were identical, although with a slightly less favorable HR of 0.67 (P = .002). In the 23 patients with BRCA reversion mutations, the median PFS was worse with rucaparib, at 2.9 months, compared with 5.5 months for chemotherapy. This translated to a HR of 2.77, although the 95% confidence interval was wide and crossed 1, likely due to the small sample size.
Among patients who had measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate in the efficacy population was 40.3% with rucaparib and 32.3% with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .13). The overall response data were similar in the ITT population (37.9% and 30.2%, respectively).
In the efficacy population, the duration of response was significantly longer in the rucaparib arm, at a median of 9.4 months versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98). The respective median response durations were identical in the ITT population, but the HR was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93).
In both the efficacy and ITT populations, global health status was virtually identical and unchanged from baseline in both treatment arms through cycle 7.
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more frequent with rucaparib. The most common TEAEs in the rucaparib and chemotherapy arms, respectively, were anemia/decreased hemoglobin (53.9% and 31.9%), nausea (53.4% and 31.9%), asthenia/fatigue (49.6% and 44.2%), ALT/AST increase (34.5% and 11.5%), and vomiting (34.1% and 16.8%).
In all, 8.2% of patients in the rucaparib arm and 12.4% of those in the chemotherapy arm discontinued therapy due to TEAEs.
Four patients in the rucaparib arm developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia – one during treatment and three during follow-up. There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in patients who received chemotherapy.
“Data from ARIEL4 fits the paradigm that single-agent activity of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated, recurrent ovarian cancer may be comparable to chemotherapy, and may, at times, be superior, depending on the study population, trial design, and treatment for control patients,” Dr. Matulonis said.
The study was funded by Clovis Oncology. Dr. Kristeleit disclosed relationships with Clovis, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Matulonis disclosed relationships with Novartis, Merck, and Immunogen.
FROM SGO 2021
‘Reassuring’ data on COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most breast cancer screening centers not following guidelines
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.
They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.
This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.
The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.
“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.
“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.
“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.
The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.
The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.
The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.
One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.
“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.
“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.
Details of the analysis
The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.
Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.
A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.
The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.