User login
Should we use antibiotics to treat sore throats?
The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.
Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
International guidelines differ on the subject
The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.
Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.
Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection
It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.
Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
When are antibiotics warranted?
It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.
Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.
But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.
Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.
Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.
Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.
As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.
Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”
The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.
The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.
Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
International guidelines differ on the subject
The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.
Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.
Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection
It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.
Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
When are antibiotics warranted?
It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.
Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.
But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.
Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.
Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.
Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.
As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.
Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”
The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.
The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.
Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
International guidelines differ on the subject
The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.
Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.
Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection
It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.
Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
When are antibiotics warranted?
It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.
Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.
But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.
Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.
Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.
Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.
As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.
Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”
The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.
FROM ESPID 2020
E-cigarette use tied to increased COPD, asthma risk
Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.
“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”
Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.
The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m2. The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).
Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.
“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.
The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.
SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816
Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.
“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”
Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.
The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m2. The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).
Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.
“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.
The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.
SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816
Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.
“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”
Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.
The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m2. The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).
Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.
“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.
The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.
SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Pediatricians want kids to be part of COVID vaccine trials
If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.
The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.
It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.
Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.
Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.
COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.
Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.
Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”
The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.
“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”
Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.
Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.
“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.
But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”
While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.
Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.
Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.
Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.
But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”
In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.
Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.
In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.
“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”
And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.
“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.
The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.
It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.
Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.
Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.
COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.
Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.
Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”
The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.
“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”
Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.
Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.
“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.
But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”
While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.
Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.
Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.
Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.
But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”
In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.
Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.
In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.
“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”
And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.
“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.
The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.
It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.
Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.
Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.
COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.
Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.
Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”
The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.
“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”
Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.
Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.
“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.
But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”
While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.
Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.
Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.
Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.
But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”
In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.
Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.
In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.
“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”
And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.
“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Teenage bone density declines following sleeve gastrectomy
Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.
“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”
She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”
It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.
“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.
To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.
“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”
Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).
Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).
In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm3 to 146 mg/cm3.
“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”
Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.
The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.
The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”
The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”
“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”
“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”
What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.
“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”
Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.
“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”
She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”
It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.
“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.
To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.
“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”
Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).
Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).
In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm3 to 146 mg/cm3.
“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”
Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.
The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.
The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”
The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”
“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”
“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”
What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.
“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”
Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.
“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”
She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”
It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.
“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.
To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.
“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”
Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).
Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).
In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm3 to 146 mg/cm3.
“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”
Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.
The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.
The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”
The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”
“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”
“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”
What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.
“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”
Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An all-oral option for advanced HR+, HER2– breast cancer?
These results suggest tesetaxel plus capecitabine is “a potential new treatment option” for this patient population, said study investigator Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center and Texas Oncology, both in Dallas.
“This should launch an oral taxane into the clinical space, which will be a nice addition to the toolbox for treating advanced breast cancer, with real upsides for patients,” said Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the trial but commented on the results in an interview.
Another commenter was more critical of CONTESSA’s results, which were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Three months’ difference in PFS in this setting is meaningless without overall survival [OS] results,” Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, said in a question submitted through the virtual meeting’s chat system.
At this point, the OS data are immature, and mature data won’t be available for another couple of years at least, according to the study’s protocol.
Dr. O’Shaughnessy defended the PFS result as being significant, however, saying it was comparable with outcomes seen previously with docetaxel-capecitabine and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations.
Other meeting attendees questioned why the waters had been muddied by testing the effects of tesetaxel in combination with capecitabine, albeit at a reduced dose, versus the approved full dose of capecitabine as monotherapy, particularly as a phase 2 trial had shown that tesetaxel demonstrated “significant activity” as monotherapy.
“The reason for the combination versus a monotherapy is because it was designed as a registration trial,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. The trial was designed to be very similar to early taxane studies where docetaxel was assessed with or without capecitabine, or paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine.
“Probably we’re going to be using a doublet for patients who have virulent disease who really need a response,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. She noted that the objective response rate was much higher with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination than with capecitabine alone, and that result alone is “probably enough that we would utilize a doublet.”
The key thing is that it now gives patients an all-oral option, Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The data are exciting because it would be terrific to have an orally available taxane chemotherapy,” agreed Dr. Burstein. “It is far more convenient for patients and opens access globally in places that do not have adequate resources for administration of IV therapeutics. Also, the data suggest that tesetaxel has a different side effect profile than IV taxane, with less neuropathy and less alopecia.”
Trial design
CONTESSA is an ongoing randomized, controlled trial that started in 2017 and is projected to end in early 2023. It is investigating the use of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone in 685 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with a taxane.
Being intrinsically orally bioavailable and more soluble than the other taxanes means that tesetaxel has a much longer half-life that allows for a “more convenient treatment experience for patients,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy observed.
Indeed, because tesetaxel only needs to be dosed once every 3 weeks, patients in the trial received tesetaxel at 27 mg/m2 only on the first day of a 21-day treatment cycle. This was combined with a reduced, 825-mg/m2 dose of capecitabine, given orally twice-daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
The combination regimen was compared with the recommended full dose of capecitabine alone, 1,250 mg/m2 given orally twice daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
Efficacy and safety
PFS was 9.8 months with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine alone, representing a 2.9-month improvement with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.716; P = .003).
A similar PFS benefit was seen regardless of multiple predefined subgroups, such as age, baseline performance status, duration of disease-free interval before study entry, and the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors.
The objective response rate was 57% with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 41% with capecitabine alone (P = .0002). The 24-week disease control rate was 67% and 50%, respectively (P < .0001).
The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event seen with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination was neutropenia, occurring in 76.9% of patients, compared with 22.6% of patients in the monotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia were much higher in the combination arm (32.6% and 38.3%, respectively) than in the monotherapy arm (7.4% and 0.9%, respectively).
The neutropenia seen was “generally manageable,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said, primarily with dose reductions and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor as needed.
She pointed out that rates of grade 3 or higher neuropathy and grade 2 alopecia were low, a respective 5.9% and 8%, with the combination.
The dose of capecitabine used in the control arm was noted to be higher than that used in usual practice.
“This was because of the global nature of the study and the regulatory requirements globally,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The dose-modification scheme was that patients could have a dose reduction at the first sign of grade 2 toxicity,” she added, giving investigators the flexibility to reduce the dose as soon as possible.
This study was sponsored by Odonate Therapeutics. Dr. O’Shaughnessy disclosed consulting fees from AbbVie, Agendia, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Heron, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Jounce, Lilly, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein and Dr. Cardoso had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: O’Shaughnessy J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS4-01.
These results suggest tesetaxel plus capecitabine is “a potential new treatment option” for this patient population, said study investigator Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center and Texas Oncology, both in Dallas.
“This should launch an oral taxane into the clinical space, which will be a nice addition to the toolbox for treating advanced breast cancer, with real upsides for patients,” said Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the trial but commented on the results in an interview.
Another commenter was more critical of CONTESSA’s results, which were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Three months’ difference in PFS in this setting is meaningless without overall survival [OS] results,” Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, said in a question submitted through the virtual meeting’s chat system.
At this point, the OS data are immature, and mature data won’t be available for another couple of years at least, according to the study’s protocol.
Dr. O’Shaughnessy defended the PFS result as being significant, however, saying it was comparable with outcomes seen previously with docetaxel-capecitabine and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations.
Other meeting attendees questioned why the waters had been muddied by testing the effects of tesetaxel in combination with capecitabine, albeit at a reduced dose, versus the approved full dose of capecitabine as monotherapy, particularly as a phase 2 trial had shown that tesetaxel demonstrated “significant activity” as monotherapy.
“The reason for the combination versus a monotherapy is because it was designed as a registration trial,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. The trial was designed to be very similar to early taxane studies where docetaxel was assessed with or without capecitabine, or paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine.
“Probably we’re going to be using a doublet for patients who have virulent disease who really need a response,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. She noted that the objective response rate was much higher with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination than with capecitabine alone, and that result alone is “probably enough that we would utilize a doublet.”
The key thing is that it now gives patients an all-oral option, Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The data are exciting because it would be terrific to have an orally available taxane chemotherapy,” agreed Dr. Burstein. “It is far more convenient for patients and opens access globally in places that do not have adequate resources for administration of IV therapeutics. Also, the data suggest that tesetaxel has a different side effect profile than IV taxane, with less neuropathy and less alopecia.”
Trial design
CONTESSA is an ongoing randomized, controlled trial that started in 2017 and is projected to end in early 2023. It is investigating the use of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone in 685 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with a taxane.
Being intrinsically orally bioavailable and more soluble than the other taxanes means that tesetaxel has a much longer half-life that allows for a “more convenient treatment experience for patients,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy observed.
Indeed, because tesetaxel only needs to be dosed once every 3 weeks, patients in the trial received tesetaxel at 27 mg/m2 only on the first day of a 21-day treatment cycle. This was combined with a reduced, 825-mg/m2 dose of capecitabine, given orally twice-daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
The combination regimen was compared with the recommended full dose of capecitabine alone, 1,250 mg/m2 given orally twice daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
Efficacy and safety
PFS was 9.8 months with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine alone, representing a 2.9-month improvement with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.716; P = .003).
A similar PFS benefit was seen regardless of multiple predefined subgroups, such as age, baseline performance status, duration of disease-free interval before study entry, and the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors.
The objective response rate was 57% with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 41% with capecitabine alone (P = .0002). The 24-week disease control rate was 67% and 50%, respectively (P < .0001).
The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event seen with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination was neutropenia, occurring in 76.9% of patients, compared with 22.6% of patients in the monotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia were much higher in the combination arm (32.6% and 38.3%, respectively) than in the monotherapy arm (7.4% and 0.9%, respectively).
The neutropenia seen was “generally manageable,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said, primarily with dose reductions and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor as needed.
She pointed out that rates of grade 3 or higher neuropathy and grade 2 alopecia were low, a respective 5.9% and 8%, with the combination.
The dose of capecitabine used in the control arm was noted to be higher than that used in usual practice.
“This was because of the global nature of the study and the regulatory requirements globally,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The dose-modification scheme was that patients could have a dose reduction at the first sign of grade 2 toxicity,” she added, giving investigators the flexibility to reduce the dose as soon as possible.
This study was sponsored by Odonate Therapeutics. Dr. O’Shaughnessy disclosed consulting fees from AbbVie, Agendia, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Heron, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Jounce, Lilly, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein and Dr. Cardoso had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: O’Shaughnessy J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS4-01.
These results suggest tesetaxel plus capecitabine is “a potential new treatment option” for this patient population, said study investigator Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center and Texas Oncology, both in Dallas.
“This should launch an oral taxane into the clinical space, which will be a nice addition to the toolbox for treating advanced breast cancer, with real upsides for patients,” said Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the trial but commented on the results in an interview.
Another commenter was more critical of CONTESSA’s results, which were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“Three months’ difference in PFS in this setting is meaningless without overall survival [OS] results,” Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, said in a question submitted through the virtual meeting’s chat system.
At this point, the OS data are immature, and mature data won’t be available for another couple of years at least, according to the study’s protocol.
Dr. O’Shaughnessy defended the PFS result as being significant, however, saying it was comparable with outcomes seen previously with docetaxel-capecitabine and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations.
Other meeting attendees questioned why the waters had been muddied by testing the effects of tesetaxel in combination with capecitabine, albeit at a reduced dose, versus the approved full dose of capecitabine as monotherapy, particularly as a phase 2 trial had shown that tesetaxel demonstrated “significant activity” as monotherapy.
“The reason for the combination versus a monotherapy is because it was designed as a registration trial,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. The trial was designed to be very similar to early taxane studies where docetaxel was assessed with or without capecitabine, or paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine.
“Probably we’re going to be using a doublet for patients who have virulent disease who really need a response,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy explained. She noted that the objective response rate was much higher with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination than with capecitabine alone, and that result alone is “probably enough that we would utilize a doublet.”
The key thing is that it now gives patients an all-oral option, Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The data are exciting because it would be terrific to have an orally available taxane chemotherapy,” agreed Dr. Burstein. “It is far more convenient for patients and opens access globally in places that do not have adequate resources for administration of IV therapeutics. Also, the data suggest that tesetaxel has a different side effect profile than IV taxane, with less neuropathy and less alopecia.”
Trial design
CONTESSA is an ongoing randomized, controlled trial that started in 2017 and is projected to end in early 2023. It is investigating the use of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone in 685 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with a taxane.
Being intrinsically orally bioavailable and more soluble than the other taxanes means that tesetaxel has a much longer half-life that allows for a “more convenient treatment experience for patients,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy observed.
Indeed, because tesetaxel only needs to be dosed once every 3 weeks, patients in the trial received tesetaxel at 27 mg/m2 only on the first day of a 21-day treatment cycle. This was combined with a reduced, 825-mg/m2 dose of capecitabine, given orally twice-daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
The combination regimen was compared with the recommended full dose of capecitabine alone, 1,250 mg/m2 given orally twice daily on days 2-14 but once daily on the evening of day 1 and on the morning of day 15.
Efficacy and safety
PFS was 9.8 months with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine alone, representing a 2.9-month improvement with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.716; P = .003).
A similar PFS benefit was seen regardless of multiple predefined subgroups, such as age, baseline performance status, duration of disease-free interval before study entry, and the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors.
The objective response rate was 57% with tesetaxel plus capecitabine and 41% with capecitabine alone (P = .0002). The 24-week disease control rate was 67% and 50%, respectively (P < .0001).
The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event seen with the tesetaxel-capecitabine combination was neutropenia, occurring in 76.9% of patients, compared with 22.6% of patients in the monotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia were much higher in the combination arm (32.6% and 38.3%, respectively) than in the monotherapy arm (7.4% and 0.9%, respectively).
The neutropenia seen was “generally manageable,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said, primarily with dose reductions and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor as needed.
She pointed out that rates of grade 3 or higher neuropathy and grade 2 alopecia were low, a respective 5.9% and 8%, with the combination.
The dose of capecitabine used in the control arm was noted to be higher than that used in usual practice.
“This was because of the global nature of the study and the regulatory requirements globally,” Dr. O’Shaughnessy said.
“The dose-modification scheme was that patients could have a dose reduction at the first sign of grade 2 toxicity,” she added, giving investigators the flexibility to reduce the dose as soon as possible.
This study was sponsored by Odonate Therapeutics. Dr. O’Shaughnessy disclosed consulting fees from AbbVie, Agendia, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Heron, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Jounce, Lilly, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein and Dr. Cardoso had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: O’Shaughnessy J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS4-01.
FROM SABCS 2020
Vaccine-preventable infection risk high for pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients
Vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs) in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients cause significant morbidity, health care burden, and mortality.
Dana Danino, MD, and colleagues presented their evaluation of the prevalence and epidemiology of pediatric VPI-associated hospitalizations occurring within 5 years post HCT at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
“Pediatric HCT recipients are at increased risk of VPIs, and HCT recipients have poor outcomes from VPIs, compared with the general population,” explained Dr. Danino, of the department of pediatrics, and divisions of infectious diseases and host defense at the Ohio State University, Columbus. “However, the contemporary prevalence, risk factors, morbidity and mortality resulting from VPIs in children post HCT are not well known.”
Their epidemiological study, using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, identified all children under 18 years that underwent allogeneic or autologous HCT in an 8-year period. A total of 9,591 unique HCT recipients were identified.
The researchers demonstrated that 7.1% of this cohort were hospitalized for a VPI in the first 5 years post HCT. Dr. Danino explained that 67% of VPI hospitalizations occurred during the first year, at a median of 222 days, and 22% of VPIs occurred during the initial HCT admission.
As to the type of infection, Dr. Danino and colleagues found that, the prevalence of VPI hospitalizations were highest for influenza, followed by varicella and invasive pneumococcal infections. They identified no hospitalizations due to measles or rubella during the study period.
The study findings revealed that the influenza infections occurred a median 231 days post HCT; varicella infections occurred a median 190 days; and invasive pneumococcal infections occurred a median 311 days post HCT.
“When we did a multivariate analysis by time post HCT, we found that age at transplantation, primary immune deficiency as an indication for transplantation, and graft versus host disease were independent predictors of VPIs during the initial HCT admission,” said Dr. Danino.
Children with a VPI who spent longer in hospital were more likely to be admitted to an ICU and have higher mortality, compared with children without a VPI diagnosis.
“VPIs led to longer duration of hospitalization, higher rates of ICU admission, and higher mortality, compared to HCT recipients without VPIs,” Dr. Danino explained. It was not possible in this retrospective study to determine whether increased mortality was VPI related.
These results underline the seriousness of infections in vulnerable children after HCT. Dr. Danino concluded by saying that “efforts to optimize vaccination strategies early post HCT are warranted to decrease VPIs.”
Dr. Danino had nothing to disclose.
Vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs) in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients cause significant morbidity, health care burden, and mortality.
Dana Danino, MD, and colleagues presented their evaluation of the prevalence and epidemiology of pediatric VPI-associated hospitalizations occurring within 5 years post HCT at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
“Pediatric HCT recipients are at increased risk of VPIs, and HCT recipients have poor outcomes from VPIs, compared with the general population,” explained Dr. Danino, of the department of pediatrics, and divisions of infectious diseases and host defense at the Ohio State University, Columbus. “However, the contemporary prevalence, risk factors, morbidity and mortality resulting from VPIs in children post HCT are not well known.”
Their epidemiological study, using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, identified all children under 18 years that underwent allogeneic or autologous HCT in an 8-year period. A total of 9,591 unique HCT recipients were identified.
The researchers demonstrated that 7.1% of this cohort were hospitalized for a VPI in the first 5 years post HCT. Dr. Danino explained that 67% of VPI hospitalizations occurred during the first year, at a median of 222 days, and 22% of VPIs occurred during the initial HCT admission.
As to the type of infection, Dr. Danino and colleagues found that, the prevalence of VPI hospitalizations were highest for influenza, followed by varicella and invasive pneumococcal infections. They identified no hospitalizations due to measles or rubella during the study period.
The study findings revealed that the influenza infections occurred a median 231 days post HCT; varicella infections occurred a median 190 days; and invasive pneumococcal infections occurred a median 311 days post HCT.
“When we did a multivariate analysis by time post HCT, we found that age at transplantation, primary immune deficiency as an indication for transplantation, and graft versus host disease were independent predictors of VPIs during the initial HCT admission,” said Dr. Danino.
Children with a VPI who spent longer in hospital were more likely to be admitted to an ICU and have higher mortality, compared with children without a VPI diagnosis.
“VPIs led to longer duration of hospitalization, higher rates of ICU admission, and higher mortality, compared to HCT recipients without VPIs,” Dr. Danino explained. It was not possible in this retrospective study to determine whether increased mortality was VPI related.
These results underline the seriousness of infections in vulnerable children after HCT. Dr. Danino concluded by saying that “efforts to optimize vaccination strategies early post HCT are warranted to decrease VPIs.”
Dr. Danino had nothing to disclose.
Vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs) in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients cause significant morbidity, health care burden, and mortality.
Dana Danino, MD, and colleagues presented their evaluation of the prevalence and epidemiology of pediatric VPI-associated hospitalizations occurring within 5 years post HCT at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.
“Pediatric HCT recipients are at increased risk of VPIs, and HCT recipients have poor outcomes from VPIs, compared with the general population,” explained Dr. Danino, of the department of pediatrics, and divisions of infectious diseases and host defense at the Ohio State University, Columbus. “However, the contemporary prevalence, risk factors, morbidity and mortality resulting from VPIs in children post HCT are not well known.”
Their epidemiological study, using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, identified all children under 18 years that underwent allogeneic or autologous HCT in an 8-year period. A total of 9,591 unique HCT recipients were identified.
The researchers demonstrated that 7.1% of this cohort were hospitalized for a VPI in the first 5 years post HCT. Dr. Danino explained that 67% of VPI hospitalizations occurred during the first year, at a median of 222 days, and 22% of VPIs occurred during the initial HCT admission.
As to the type of infection, Dr. Danino and colleagues found that, the prevalence of VPI hospitalizations were highest for influenza, followed by varicella and invasive pneumococcal infections. They identified no hospitalizations due to measles or rubella during the study period.
The study findings revealed that the influenza infections occurred a median 231 days post HCT; varicella infections occurred a median 190 days; and invasive pneumococcal infections occurred a median 311 days post HCT.
“When we did a multivariate analysis by time post HCT, we found that age at transplantation, primary immune deficiency as an indication for transplantation, and graft versus host disease were independent predictors of VPIs during the initial HCT admission,” said Dr. Danino.
Children with a VPI who spent longer in hospital were more likely to be admitted to an ICU and have higher mortality, compared with children without a VPI diagnosis.
“VPIs led to longer duration of hospitalization, higher rates of ICU admission, and higher mortality, compared to HCT recipients without VPIs,” Dr. Danino explained. It was not possible in this retrospective study to determine whether increased mortality was VPI related.
These results underline the seriousness of infections in vulnerable children after HCT. Dr. Danino concluded by saying that “efforts to optimize vaccination strategies early post HCT are warranted to decrease VPIs.”
Dr. Danino had nothing to disclose.
FROM ESPID 2020
Oral steroids plus PPIs increase osteoporotic fracture risk in RA patients
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.
“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.
Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.
Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).
Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”
Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.
“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.
Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.
Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).
Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”
Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.
“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.
Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.
Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).
Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.
The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”
Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.
FROM ANNALS OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Prospects dim for Medicare drug reimbursement cuts
A proposal to lower Medicare Part B reimbursements for 50 physician-administered drugs and biologics to what drug manufacturers receive for them in other wealthy nations seems unlikely to take effect as planned on January 1, 2021. The proposal has been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry as well as oncologists and other physicians who use the products most often.
At least four lawsuits have been filed in US district courts to block the move, including from Regeneron, manufacturer of the ophthalmic biologic aflibercept, the first agent on the list; the Community Oncology Alliance; the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, California Life Sciences Association, and Biocom; and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and National Infusion Center Association.
The proposal could hit oncologists/hematologists particularly hard because they are the primary prescribers of about 30 of the 50 agents on the list, including mainstay breast, lung, and prostate cancer treatments and newer immunotherapies. In its filing for injunctive relieve, the Community Oncology Alliance, a trade group for community oncologists, said the proposal exposes “the health and safety of cancer patients and other patients with potentially life-threatening diseases to real danger.”
Hearings are imminent
Hearings on the proposal, which was published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 27 following an executive order September 13, are scheduled for coming days. The first hearing is scheduled for December 18.
Given the looming implementation date, judges are likely to rule quickly on the motions for injunctive relief, said attorney Rachel Sachs, a health law expert and associate professor at the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri. The odds are in plaintiffs’ favor based on procedural and Constitutional grounds. “It’s extremely unlikely to survive” the legal onslaught, she told Medscape Medical News.
Among the many issues raised in court filings, the proposal was released as an interim final rule (IFR), meaning it would take effect outside of the usual process of proposed rule, comment period, revision, then implementation. The law allows for bypassing normal rule-making requirements with an IFR, but they are meant for emergency situations — several have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic — and the government must be able to show that delay would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” Sachs explained.
In contrast, some form of CMS’s new proposal, dubbed the “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) model for drug reimbursements, has been under consideration by the Trump administration since 2018.
“The way the [Trump] administration rolled this rule out at pretty much the last minute opens them up to greater legal challenges than if they pursued more normal regulatory pathways, which they had the opportunity to do. They are attempting to implement this on a time frame that is unprecedented for as large a change as this is,” said Juliette Cubanski, PhD, deputy director of Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, California.
Reimbursement less than acquisition costs
In the proposal, CMS sought to offset the higher prices that pharmaceutical companies charge in the United States when compared with other developed nations — the prices are about double on average.
“One of the largest drivers of increasing Medicare spending is the growing prices for physician-administered separately payable Medicare Part B drugs, which have risen an average of 11.5% annually since 2015, with total spending of approximately $30 billion in 2019,” the agency said in a fact sheet. This is due in large part to “lack of competitive market forces on Medicare Part B drug costs,” it added.
The 50 agents covered by the new proposal are the ones Part B spends the most on, almost $3 billion in 2019 for aflibercept alone, followed closely by pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy used in many different cancer types.
A full list of the drugs and biologicals included in the proposal is on page 50 of the IFR.
CMS estimated that its move would cut reimbursements by approximately 65% once fully implemented in 4 years and save $87.8 billion over the 7 years of the proposed model, as well as reduce cost sharing for beneficiaries.
This model puts the onus on providers to negotiate down drug prices with companies to meet proposed reimbursement limits. However, if companies do not lower their prices, acquisition costs could be substantially lower than reimbursements.
Prescribers and their practices would either have to take the financial hit or stop offering the pharmaceuticals, in which case patients would have to do without, try a different option, or seek care elsewhere, including facilities excluded from the proposal: children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals, cancer hospitals, federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and extended neoplastic disease care hospitals.
CMS estimates that in the first year of MFN reimbursements, 9% of beneficiaries would forgo MFN therapies, growing to 19% by year 3, figures that were included in cost savings estimates.
The reimbursement cuts are meant to motivate manufactures to lower prices, but “we have not seen this occur with similar efforts in the past, and drug prices have continued to rise,” said American College of Rheumatology President David Karp, MD, PhD, in a press release. Many of the agents on the list are used by rheumatologists.
Under current policy, Medicare Part B prescribers are reimbursed manufactures’ average sales price plus a 6% add-on. Under the new proposal, reimbursements would be pegged to the lowest price charged among nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with a gross domestic product per capita of at least 60% of the US price. In addition to the United States, there are 36 other member countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany.
To remove incentives to prescribe more expensive drugs, the 6% add-on would be replaced with a flat add-on payment per dose, pegged at $148.73 for the first quarter of 2021. There is a hardship exemption for providers if the reimbursement cuts are too drastic, but that involves a lot of paperwork.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A proposal to lower Medicare Part B reimbursements for 50 physician-administered drugs and biologics to what drug manufacturers receive for them in other wealthy nations seems unlikely to take effect as planned on January 1, 2021. The proposal has been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry as well as oncologists and other physicians who use the products most often.
At least four lawsuits have been filed in US district courts to block the move, including from Regeneron, manufacturer of the ophthalmic biologic aflibercept, the first agent on the list; the Community Oncology Alliance; the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, California Life Sciences Association, and Biocom; and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and National Infusion Center Association.
The proposal could hit oncologists/hematologists particularly hard because they are the primary prescribers of about 30 of the 50 agents on the list, including mainstay breast, lung, and prostate cancer treatments and newer immunotherapies. In its filing for injunctive relieve, the Community Oncology Alliance, a trade group for community oncologists, said the proposal exposes “the health and safety of cancer patients and other patients with potentially life-threatening diseases to real danger.”
Hearings are imminent
Hearings on the proposal, which was published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 27 following an executive order September 13, are scheduled for coming days. The first hearing is scheduled for December 18.
Given the looming implementation date, judges are likely to rule quickly on the motions for injunctive relief, said attorney Rachel Sachs, a health law expert and associate professor at the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri. The odds are in plaintiffs’ favor based on procedural and Constitutional grounds. “It’s extremely unlikely to survive” the legal onslaught, she told Medscape Medical News.
Among the many issues raised in court filings, the proposal was released as an interim final rule (IFR), meaning it would take effect outside of the usual process of proposed rule, comment period, revision, then implementation. The law allows for bypassing normal rule-making requirements with an IFR, but they are meant for emergency situations — several have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic — and the government must be able to show that delay would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” Sachs explained.
In contrast, some form of CMS’s new proposal, dubbed the “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) model for drug reimbursements, has been under consideration by the Trump administration since 2018.
“The way the [Trump] administration rolled this rule out at pretty much the last minute opens them up to greater legal challenges than if they pursued more normal regulatory pathways, which they had the opportunity to do. They are attempting to implement this on a time frame that is unprecedented for as large a change as this is,” said Juliette Cubanski, PhD, deputy director of Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, California.
Reimbursement less than acquisition costs
In the proposal, CMS sought to offset the higher prices that pharmaceutical companies charge in the United States when compared with other developed nations — the prices are about double on average.
“One of the largest drivers of increasing Medicare spending is the growing prices for physician-administered separately payable Medicare Part B drugs, which have risen an average of 11.5% annually since 2015, with total spending of approximately $30 billion in 2019,” the agency said in a fact sheet. This is due in large part to “lack of competitive market forces on Medicare Part B drug costs,” it added.
The 50 agents covered by the new proposal are the ones Part B spends the most on, almost $3 billion in 2019 for aflibercept alone, followed closely by pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy used in many different cancer types.
A full list of the drugs and biologicals included in the proposal is on page 50 of the IFR.
CMS estimated that its move would cut reimbursements by approximately 65% once fully implemented in 4 years and save $87.8 billion over the 7 years of the proposed model, as well as reduce cost sharing for beneficiaries.
This model puts the onus on providers to negotiate down drug prices with companies to meet proposed reimbursement limits. However, if companies do not lower their prices, acquisition costs could be substantially lower than reimbursements.
Prescribers and their practices would either have to take the financial hit or stop offering the pharmaceuticals, in which case patients would have to do without, try a different option, or seek care elsewhere, including facilities excluded from the proposal: children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals, cancer hospitals, federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and extended neoplastic disease care hospitals.
CMS estimates that in the first year of MFN reimbursements, 9% of beneficiaries would forgo MFN therapies, growing to 19% by year 3, figures that were included in cost savings estimates.
The reimbursement cuts are meant to motivate manufactures to lower prices, but “we have not seen this occur with similar efforts in the past, and drug prices have continued to rise,” said American College of Rheumatology President David Karp, MD, PhD, in a press release. Many of the agents on the list are used by rheumatologists.
Under current policy, Medicare Part B prescribers are reimbursed manufactures’ average sales price plus a 6% add-on. Under the new proposal, reimbursements would be pegged to the lowest price charged among nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with a gross domestic product per capita of at least 60% of the US price. In addition to the United States, there are 36 other member countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany.
To remove incentives to prescribe more expensive drugs, the 6% add-on would be replaced with a flat add-on payment per dose, pegged at $148.73 for the first quarter of 2021. There is a hardship exemption for providers if the reimbursement cuts are too drastic, but that involves a lot of paperwork.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A proposal to lower Medicare Part B reimbursements for 50 physician-administered drugs and biologics to what drug manufacturers receive for them in other wealthy nations seems unlikely to take effect as planned on January 1, 2021. The proposal has been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry as well as oncologists and other physicians who use the products most often.
At least four lawsuits have been filed in US district courts to block the move, including from Regeneron, manufacturer of the ophthalmic biologic aflibercept, the first agent on the list; the Community Oncology Alliance; the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, California Life Sciences Association, and Biocom; and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the Global Colon Cancer Association, and National Infusion Center Association.
The proposal could hit oncologists/hematologists particularly hard because they are the primary prescribers of about 30 of the 50 agents on the list, including mainstay breast, lung, and prostate cancer treatments and newer immunotherapies. In its filing for injunctive relieve, the Community Oncology Alliance, a trade group for community oncologists, said the proposal exposes “the health and safety of cancer patients and other patients with potentially life-threatening diseases to real danger.”
Hearings are imminent
Hearings on the proposal, which was published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 27 following an executive order September 13, are scheduled for coming days. The first hearing is scheduled for December 18.
Given the looming implementation date, judges are likely to rule quickly on the motions for injunctive relief, said attorney Rachel Sachs, a health law expert and associate professor at the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri. The odds are in plaintiffs’ favor based on procedural and Constitutional grounds. “It’s extremely unlikely to survive” the legal onslaught, she told Medscape Medical News.
Among the many issues raised in court filings, the proposal was released as an interim final rule (IFR), meaning it would take effect outside of the usual process of proposed rule, comment period, revision, then implementation. The law allows for bypassing normal rule-making requirements with an IFR, but they are meant for emergency situations — several have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic — and the government must be able to show that delay would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” Sachs explained.
In contrast, some form of CMS’s new proposal, dubbed the “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) model for drug reimbursements, has been under consideration by the Trump administration since 2018.
“The way the [Trump] administration rolled this rule out at pretty much the last minute opens them up to greater legal challenges than if they pursued more normal regulatory pathways, which they had the opportunity to do. They are attempting to implement this on a time frame that is unprecedented for as large a change as this is,” said Juliette Cubanski, PhD, deputy director of Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, California.
Reimbursement less than acquisition costs
In the proposal, CMS sought to offset the higher prices that pharmaceutical companies charge in the United States when compared with other developed nations — the prices are about double on average.
“One of the largest drivers of increasing Medicare spending is the growing prices for physician-administered separately payable Medicare Part B drugs, which have risen an average of 11.5% annually since 2015, with total spending of approximately $30 billion in 2019,” the agency said in a fact sheet. This is due in large part to “lack of competitive market forces on Medicare Part B drug costs,” it added.
The 50 agents covered by the new proposal are the ones Part B spends the most on, almost $3 billion in 2019 for aflibercept alone, followed closely by pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy used in many different cancer types.
A full list of the drugs and biologicals included in the proposal is on page 50 of the IFR.
CMS estimated that its move would cut reimbursements by approximately 65% once fully implemented in 4 years and save $87.8 billion over the 7 years of the proposed model, as well as reduce cost sharing for beneficiaries.
This model puts the onus on providers to negotiate down drug prices with companies to meet proposed reimbursement limits. However, if companies do not lower their prices, acquisition costs could be substantially lower than reimbursements.
Prescribers and their practices would either have to take the financial hit or stop offering the pharmaceuticals, in which case patients would have to do without, try a different option, or seek care elsewhere, including facilities excluded from the proposal: children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals, cancer hospitals, federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and extended neoplastic disease care hospitals.
CMS estimates that in the first year of MFN reimbursements, 9% of beneficiaries would forgo MFN therapies, growing to 19% by year 3, figures that were included in cost savings estimates.
The reimbursement cuts are meant to motivate manufactures to lower prices, but “we have not seen this occur with similar efforts in the past, and drug prices have continued to rise,” said American College of Rheumatology President David Karp, MD, PhD, in a press release. Many of the agents on the list are used by rheumatologists.
Under current policy, Medicare Part B prescribers are reimbursed manufactures’ average sales price plus a 6% add-on. Under the new proposal, reimbursements would be pegged to the lowest price charged among nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with a gross domestic product per capita of at least 60% of the US price. In addition to the United States, there are 36 other member countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany.
To remove incentives to prescribe more expensive drugs, the 6% add-on would be replaced with a flat add-on payment per dose, pegged at $148.73 for the first quarter of 2021. There is a hardship exemption for providers if the reimbursement cuts are too drastic, but that involves a lot of paperwork.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ambulatory BP monitoring reliability questioned for HTN diagnosis
Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.
One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.
The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.
Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”
Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.
An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.
In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”
He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.
That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”
One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”
The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.
After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.
The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m2, and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.
Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.
After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m2 (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m2 (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.
Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.
“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.
“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.
The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.
Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”
Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest.
“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.
The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.
One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.
The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.
Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”
Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.
An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.
In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”
He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.
That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”
One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”
The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.
After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.
The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m2, and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.
Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.
After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m2 (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m2 (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.
Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.
“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.
“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.
The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.
Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”
Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest.
“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.
The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.
One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.
The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.
Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”
Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.
An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.
In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”
He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.
That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”
One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”
The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.
After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.
The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m2, and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.
Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.
After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m2 (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m2 (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.
Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.
“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.
“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.
The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.
Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”
Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest.
“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.
The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccines: Safe for immunocompromised patients?
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.