Fellowship is a time of great growth for pediatric hospital medicine fellows as clinicians, educators, scholars, and as leaders. Leadership is a crucial skill for hospitalists that is cultivated throughout fellowship. As fellows, we step into the role of clinical team leader for the first time and it is our responsibility to create a clinical and educational environment that is safe, inviting and engaging.

For possibly the first time in our careers, pediatric hospital medicine fellows are expected to make final decisions, big and small. We are faced with high-pressure situations almost daily, whether it is a rapid response on a patient, tough diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, difficult conversations with families, or dealing with challenging team members.

Soon after starting fellowship I was faced with a such a situation. The patient was a 6-month-old infant with trisomy 21 who was admitted because of feeding difficulties. They were working on oral feeds but required nasogastric (NG) feeds to meet caloric needs. On my first day on service, the residents indicated that the medical team desired the patient to have a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placed. I was hoping to send the patient home for a few weeks with the NG tube to see if they were making progress on their oral feeds before deciding on the need for a G-tube. However, the patient’s parents pulled me aside in the hallway and said they were considering a third possibility.

The parents felt strongly about a trial period of a few weeks without the NG tube to see if the patient was able to maintain adequate weight gain with just oral feeds. The bedside nurse reiterated that the family felt their concerns had not been considered up until this point. As the fellow and team leader, it was my job to navigate between my resident team, myself, and the family in order to make a final decision. Through a bedside meeting and shared decision making, we were able to compromise and negotiate a decision, allowing the patient to go home on just oral feeds with close follow-up with their pediatrician. Afterwards, I found myself searching for strategies to be a better leader in these situations.

I found a potential answer in a recent article from the Harvard Business Review titled “What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations.”¹ The article discusses crew resource management (CRM), which was developed in the 1980s and is used in civil and military aviation worldwide. CRM is based on two principles to improve crisis management: The hierarchy on the flight deck must be flattened, and crew members must be actively integrated into the flight’s work flows and decision-making processes.

The authors of the article conducted two different studies to further understand CRM and its effects. The first study included observing 11 flight crews in emergency simulations. In the study, the flight crew had to react to an emergency, and then conduct a landing of the aircraft. What the authors found was that the captain’s style of communication had a major impact on crew performance in two major ways: Crews performed consistently better under times of pressure when the copilot was included in the decision-making process, and captains who asked open-ended questions (“How do you assess the situation”) came up with better solutions than captains who asked “yes or no” questions.

The authors conclude that “involving colleagues as equal decision partners by asking them questions…aids constructive, factual information exchange.” The second study consisted of conducting 61 interviews with flight crew members to better understand crisis management. In the interviews, the same theme occurred, that open-ended questions are vital in all decision-making processes and may be preventative against dangerous or imperfect outcomes. As fellows and team leaders we can learn from CRM and these studies. We need to flatten the hierarchy and ask open-ended questions.

To flatten the hierarchy, we should value the thoughts and opinions of all our team members. Now more than ever in this current COVID-19 pandemic with many hospitals instituting telehealth/telerounding for some or all team members, it is essential to utilize our entire “flight crew” (physicians, nurses, therapists, subspecialists, social worker, case managers, etc.) during routine decisions and high-stake decisions. We should make sure our flight crew, especially the bedside nurse is part of the decision-making process.² This means we need to ensure they are present and given a voice on clinical rounds. To flatten the hierarchy, we must take pride in eliciting other team member’s opinions. We must realize that we alone do not have all the answers, and other team members may have different frameworks in which they process a decision.

Finally, in medicine, our patients and families are included in our flight crew. They too must have a voice in the decision-making process. Previous studies have shown that patients and families desire to be included in the decision-making process, and opportunities exist to improve shared decision-making in pediatrics.^3-5 Lastly, we should commit to asking open-ended questions from our team and our patients. We should value their input and use their answers and frameworks to make the best decision for our patients.

I wasn’t aware at the time, but I was using some of the principles of CRM while navigating my high-pressure situation. A bedside meeting with all team members and the patient’s family helped to flatten the hierarchy by understanding and valuing each team member’s input. Asking open-ended questions of the different team members led to a more inviting and engaging clinical and learning environment. These strategies helped to lead our team into a clinical decision that wasn’t entirely clear at first but ended up being the best decision for the patient, as they are now thriving without ever requiring supplemental nutrition after discharge.

As physicians, we have learned a lot from the airline industry about wellness and the effect of fatigue on performance. It is clear now that we can also learn from them about clinical decision-making and leadership strategies. When adopted for health care, CRM principles have been shown to result in a culture of safety and long-term behavioral change.^6,7 If we can model ourselves after the airline industry by following the principles of CRM, then we will be better clinicians, educators, and leaders.

Dr. Palmer is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and is working toward a masters in academic medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, with a focus on curriculum development and educational scholarship production.

References

1. Hagan J et al. What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations. Harvard Business Review. 2019 Dec. https://hbr.org/2019/12/what-aircraft-crews-know-about-managing-high-pressure-situations

2. Erickson J. Bedside nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making: A brief review of the literature. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2013;32(2):65-8.

3. Richards CA et al. Physicians perceptions of shared decision-making in neonatal and pediatric critical care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(4):669-76.

4. Boland L et al. Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5.

5. Blankenburg R et al. Shared decision-making during inpatient rounds: Opportunities for improvement in patient engagement and communication. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(7):453-61.

6. Kemper PF et al. Crew resource management training in the intensive care unit. A multisite controlled before-after study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):577-87.

7. Sax HC et al. Can aviation-based team training elicit sustainable behavioral change? Arch Surg. 2009;144(12):1133-7.

Fellowship is a time of great growth for pediatric hospital medicine fellows as clinicians, educators, scholars, and as leaders. Leadership is a crucial skill for hospitalists that is cultivated throughout fellowship. As fellows, we step into the role of clinical team leader for the first time and it is our responsibility to create a clinical and educational environment that is safe, inviting and engaging.

For possibly the first time in our careers, pediatric hospital medicine fellows are expected to make final decisions, big and small. We are faced with high-pressure situations almost daily, whether it is a rapid response on a patient, tough diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, difficult conversations with families, or dealing with challenging team members.

Soon after starting fellowship I was faced with a such a situation. The patient was a 6-month-old infant with trisomy 21 who was admitted because of feeding difficulties. They were working on oral feeds but required nasogastric (NG) feeds to meet caloric needs. On my first day on service, the residents indicated that the medical team desired the patient to have a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placed. I was hoping to send the patient home for a few weeks with the NG tube to see if they were making progress on their oral feeds before deciding on the need for a G-tube. However, the patient’s parents pulled me aside in the hallway and said they were considering a third possibility.

The parents felt strongly about a trial period of a few weeks without the NG tube to see if the patient was able to maintain adequate weight gain with just oral feeds. The bedside nurse reiterated that the family felt their concerns had not been considered up until this point. As the fellow and team leader, it was my job to navigate between my resident team, myself, and the family in order to make a final decision. Through a bedside meeting and shared decision making, we were able to compromise and negotiate a decision, allowing the patient to go home on just oral feeds with close follow-up with their pediatrician. Afterwards, I found myself searching for strategies to be a better leader in these situations.

I found a potential answer in a recent article from the Harvard Business Review titled “What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations.”¹ The article discusses crew resource management (CRM), which was developed in the 1980s and is used in civil and military aviation worldwide. CRM is based on two principles to improve crisis management: The hierarchy on the flight deck must be flattened, and crew members must be actively integrated into the flight’s work flows and decision-making processes.

The authors of the article conducted two different studies to further understand CRM and its effects. The first study included observing 11 flight crews in emergency simulations. In the study, the flight crew had to react to an emergency, and then conduct a landing of the aircraft. What the authors found was that the captain’s style of communication had a major impact on crew performance in two major ways: Crews performed consistently better under times of pressure when the copilot was included in the decision-making process, and captains who asked open-ended questions (“How do you assess the situation”) came up with better solutions than captains who asked “yes or no” questions.

The authors conclude that “involving colleagues as equal decision partners by asking them questions…aids constructive, factual information exchange.” The second study consisted of conducting 61 interviews with flight crew members to better understand crisis management. In the interviews, the same theme occurred, that open-ended questions are vital in all decision-making processes and may be preventative against dangerous or imperfect outcomes. As fellows and team leaders we can learn from CRM and these studies. We need to flatten the hierarchy and ask open-ended questions.

To flatten the hierarchy, we should value the thoughts and opinions of all our team members. Now more than ever in this current COVID-19 pandemic with many hospitals instituting telehealth/telerounding for some or all team members, it is essential to utilize our entire “flight crew” (physicians, nurses, therapists, subspecialists, social worker, case managers, etc.) during routine decisions and high-stake decisions. We should make sure our flight crew, especially the bedside nurse is part of the decision-making process.² This means we need to ensure they are present and given a voice on clinical rounds. To flatten the hierarchy, we must take pride in eliciting other team member’s opinions. We must realize that we alone do not have all the answers, and other team members may have different frameworks in which they process a decision.

Finally, in medicine, our patients and families are included in our flight crew. They too must have a voice in the decision-making process. Previous studies have shown that patients and families desire to be included in the decision-making process, and opportunities exist to improve shared decision-making in pediatrics.^3-5 Lastly, we should commit to asking open-ended questions from our team and our patients. We should value their input and use their answers and frameworks to make the best decision for our patients.

I wasn’t aware at the time, but I was using some of the principles of CRM while navigating my high-pressure situation. A bedside meeting with all team members and the patient’s family helped to flatten the hierarchy by understanding and valuing each team member’s input. Asking open-ended questions of the different team members led to a more inviting and engaging clinical and learning environment. These strategies helped to lead our team into a clinical decision that wasn’t entirely clear at first but ended up being the best decision for the patient, as they are now thriving without ever requiring supplemental nutrition after discharge.

As physicians, we have learned a lot from the airline industry about wellness and the effect of fatigue on performance. It is clear now that we can also learn from them about clinical decision-making and leadership strategies. When adopted for health care, CRM principles have been shown to result in a culture of safety and long-term behavioral change.^6,7 If we can model ourselves after the airline industry by following the principles of CRM, then we will be better clinicians, educators, and leaders.

Dr. Palmer is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and is working toward a masters in academic medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, with a focus on curriculum development and educational scholarship production.

References

1. Hagan J et al. What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations. Harvard Business Review. 2019 Dec. https://hbr.org/2019/12/what-aircraft-crews-know-about-managing-high-pressure-situations

2. Erickson J. Bedside nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making: A brief review of the literature. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2013;32(2):65-8.

3. Richards CA et al. Physicians perceptions of shared decision-making in neonatal and pediatric critical care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(4):669-76.

4. Boland L et al. Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5.

5. Blankenburg R et al. Shared decision-making during inpatient rounds: Opportunities for improvement in patient engagement and communication. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(7):453-61.

6. Kemper PF et al. Crew resource management training in the intensive care unit. A multisite controlled before-after study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):577-87.

7. Sax HC et al. Can aviation-based team training elicit sustainable behavioral change? Arch Surg. 2009;144(12):1133-7.

Fellowship is a time of great growth for pediatric hospital medicine fellows as clinicians, educators, scholars, and as leaders. Leadership is a crucial skill for hospitalists that is cultivated throughout fellowship. As fellows, we step into the role of clinical team leader for the first time and it is our responsibility to create a clinical and educational environment that is safe, inviting and engaging.

For possibly the first time in our careers, pediatric hospital medicine fellows are expected to make final decisions, big and small. We are faced with high-pressure situations almost daily, whether it is a rapid response on a patient, tough diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, difficult conversations with families, or dealing with challenging team members.

Soon after starting fellowship I was faced with a such a situation. The patient was a 6-month-old infant with trisomy 21 who was admitted because of feeding difficulties. They were working on oral feeds but required nasogastric (NG) feeds to meet caloric needs. On my first day on service, the residents indicated that the medical team desired the patient to have a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placed. I was hoping to send the patient home for a few weeks with the NG tube to see if they were making progress on their oral feeds before deciding on the need for a G-tube. However, the patient’s parents pulled me aside in the hallway and said they were considering a third possibility.

The parents felt strongly about a trial period of a few weeks without the NG tube to see if the patient was able to maintain adequate weight gain with just oral feeds. The bedside nurse reiterated that the family felt their concerns had not been considered up until this point. As the fellow and team leader, it was my job to navigate between my resident team, myself, and the family in order to make a final decision. Through a bedside meeting and shared decision making, we were able to compromise and negotiate a decision, allowing the patient to go home on just oral feeds with close follow-up with their pediatrician. Afterwards, I found myself searching for strategies to be a better leader in these situations.

I found a potential answer in a recent article from the Harvard Business Review titled “What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations.”¹ The article discusses crew resource management (CRM), which was developed in the 1980s and is used in civil and military aviation worldwide. CRM is based on two principles to improve crisis management: The hierarchy on the flight deck must be flattened, and crew members must be actively integrated into the flight’s work flows and decision-making processes.

The authors of the article conducted two different studies to further understand CRM and its effects. The first study included observing 11 flight crews in emergency simulations. In the study, the flight crew had to react to an emergency, and then conduct a landing of the aircraft. What the authors found was that the captain’s style of communication had a major impact on crew performance in two major ways: Crews performed consistently better under times of pressure when the copilot was included in the decision-making process, and captains who asked open-ended questions (“How do you assess the situation”) came up with better solutions than captains who asked “yes or no” questions.

The authors conclude that “involving colleagues as equal decision partners by asking them questions…aids constructive, factual information exchange.” The second study consisted of conducting 61 interviews with flight crew members to better understand crisis management. In the interviews, the same theme occurred, that open-ended questions are vital in all decision-making processes and may be preventative against dangerous or imperfect outcomes. As fellows and team leaders we can learn from CRM and these studies. We need to flatten the hierarchy and ask open-ended questions.

To flatten the hierarchy, we should value the thoughts and opinions of all our team members. Now more than ever in this current COVID-19 pandemic with many hospitals instituting telehealth/telerounding for some or all team members, it is essential to utilize our entire “flight crew” (physicians, nurses, therapists, subspecialists, social worker, case managers, etc.) during routine decisions and high-stake decisions. We should make sure our flight crew, especially the bedside nurse is part of the decision-making process.² This means we need to ensure they are present and given a voice on clinical rounds. To flatten the hierarchy, we must take pride in eliciting other team member’s opinions. We must realize that we alone do not have all the answers, and other team members may have different frameworks in which they process a decision.

Finally, in medicine, our patients and families are included in our flight crew. They too must have a voice in the decision-making process. Previous studies have shown that patients and families desire to be included in the decision-making process, and opportunities exist to improve shared decision-making in pediatrics.^3-5 Lastly, we should commit to asking open-ended questions from our team and our patients. We should value their input and use their answers and frameworks to make the best decision for our patients.

I wasn’t aware at the time, but I was using some of the principles of CRM while navigating my high-pressure situation. A bedside meeting with all team members and the patient’s family helped to flatten the hierarchy by understanding and valuing each team member’s input. Asking open-ended questions of the different team members led to a more inviting and engaging clinical and learning environment. These strategies helped to lead our team into a clinical decision that wasn’t entirely clear at first but ended up being the best decision for the patient, as they are now thriving without ever requiring supplemental nutrition after discharge.

As physicians, we have learned a lot from the airline industry about wellness and the effect of fatigue on performance. It is clear now that we can also learn from them about clinical decision-making and leadership strategies. When adopted for health care, CRM principles have been shown to result in a culture of safety and long-term behavioral change.^6,7 If we can model ourselves after the airline industry by following the principles of CRM, then we will be better clinicians, educators, and leaders.

Dr. Palmer is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and is working toward a masters in academic medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, with a focus on curriculum development and educational scholarship production.

References

1. Hagan J et al. What Aircraft Crews Know About Managing High-Pressure Situations. Harvard Business Review. 2019 Dec. https://hbr.org/2019/12/what-aircraft-crews-know-about-managing-high-pressure-situations

2. Erickson J. Bedside nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making: A brief review of the literature. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2013;32(2):65-8.

3. Richards CA et al. Physicians perceptions of shared decision-making in neonatal and pediatric critical care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(4):669-76.

4. Boland L et al. Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5.

5. Blankenburg R et al. Shared decision-making during inpatient rounds: Opportunities for improvement in patient engagement and communication. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(7):453-61.

6. Kemper PF et al. Crew resource management training in the intensive care unit. A multisite controlled before-after study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):577-87.

7. Sax HC et al. Can aviation-based team training elicit sustainable behavioral change? Arch Surg. 2009;144(12):1133-7.

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.

AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)

In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.

AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.

There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.

Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.

This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.

This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.

The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.

AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)

In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.

AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.

There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.

Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.

This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.

This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.

The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.

AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)

In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.

AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.

There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.

Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.

This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.

This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.