One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

A skin biopsy from the right thigh demonstrated subepidermal blisters containing neutrophils (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence revealed linear basement membrane zone staining with C3 and trace staining with IgG (Figure 2), supporting a diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP). Oral prednisone—starting at 60 mg daily and tapered to 40 mg for a week, 20 mg for a week, then 10 mg for a month—along with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% to affected areas led to improvement. Hydrochlorothiazide and UV light therapy were discontinued. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily prescribed as adjunctive therapy also led to improvement. The patient achieved remission with doxycycline and was doing well without prednisone; however, he experienced a flare of his disease about 6 months later and was started on mycophenolate mofetil 1 g twice daily after clearance from his gastroenterologist, given his history of hepatitis B. He has been doing well since starting mycophenolate mofetil.

Lichen planus pemphigoides is a rare autoimmune bullous dermatosis with features of both lichen planus and bullous pemphigoid.¹ Violaceous papules and tense bullae may be superimposed or arise independently. The chest, abdomen, back, and upper and lower extremities typically are involved.² Oral mucosal involvement with white reticular streaks or erosions and nail involvement have been reported.² Histopathologic and immunologic findings establish the diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides is associated with subepidermal bullae and linear deposits of IgG and C3 on the basement membrane zone.¹ Autoantibodies to bullous pemphigoid (BP) antigens BP180 and BP230 are associated with LPP.³ The pathogenesis of LPP remains unclear, but there are associations with chronic diseases, medications, and certain therapies.^1,4-6 Several case reports have linked LPP to chronic viral hepatitis infections, as well as malignant tumors of the skin, mucosa, and gastrointestinal tract.² Lichen planus pemphigoides has been reported in a patient on entecavir for hepatitis B as well as in a patient treated for hepatitis C with interferon and ribavirin.¹ Lichen planus pemphigoides has been described in patients treated with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors enalapril, captopril, and ramipril.^4,5,7 UV phototherapy also has been associated with the development of LPP.⁶ Hydrochlorothiazide previously has been reported as a cause of drug-induced lichen planus.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms lichen planus pemphigoides and hydrochlorothiazide revealed no reports of hydrochlorothiazide-induced LPP.

Lichen planus pemphigoides demonstrates overlap with other blistering dermatoses, such as BP, bullous lupus erythematosus, and bullous lichen planus. Although histologically and immunologically similar to BP, LPP can be differentiated clinically by the presence of violaceous papules or plaques typical of lichen planus.⁹ Bullous pemphigoid is more common in individuals older than 70 years, whereas LPP tends to occur in middle-aged adults.² Bullous lupus erythematosus usually is associated with manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus and autoantibodies to collagen type VII.¹⁰ Salt-split skin studies demonstrate immunofluorescence on the dermal side of the split. Individuals affected by bullous lupus erythematosus typically have a history of photosensitivity.¹⁰ Blisters in LPP may form de novo from unaffected skin, whereas the bullae in bullous lichen planus are limited to existing lichenoid papules.⁹ The autoantibodies typical of LPP are absent in bullous lichen planus. Lichen planus actinicus is a variant of lichen planus that presents with annular, dyschromic, or violaceous plaques in a photodistributed pattern without bullous lesions.⁹

Lichen planus pemphigoides most commonly is treated with systemic corticosteroids. Topical steroids, dapsone, erythromycin, tetracycline and nicotinamide, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil have been reported as adjuncts to systemic steroid therapy.^2,11 Most reports describe treatment success with resolution of blistering lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

A skin biopsy from the right thigh demonstrated subepidermal blisters containing neutrophils (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence revealed linear basement membrane zone staining with C3 and trace staining with IgG (Figure 2), supporting a diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP). Oral prednisone—starting at 60 mg daily and tapered to 40 mg for a week, 20 mg for a week, then 10 mg for a month—along with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% to affected areas led to improvement. Hydrochlorothiazide and UV light therapy were discontinued. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily prescribed as adjunctive therapy also led to improvement. The patient achieved remission with doxycycline and was doing well without prednisone; however, he experienced a flare of his disease about 6 months later and was started on mycophenolate mofetil 1 g twice daily after clearance from his gastroenterologist, given his history of hepatitis B. He has been doing well since starting mycophenolate mofetil.

Lichen planus pemphigoides is a rare autoimmune bullous dermatosis with features of both lichen planus and bullous pemphigoid.¹ Violaceous papules and tense bullae may be superimposed or arise independently. The chest, abdomen, back, and upper and lower extremities typically are involved.² Oral mucosal involvement with white reticular streaks or erosions and nail involvement have been reported.² Histopathologic and immunologic findings establish the diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides is associated with subepidermal bullae and linear deposits of IgG and C3 on the basement membrane zone.¹ Autoantibodies to bullous pemphigoid (BP) antigens BP180 and BP230 are associated with LPP.³ The pathogenesis of LPP remains unclear, but there are associations with chronic diseases, medications, and certain therapies.^1,4-6 Several case reports have linked LPP to chronic viral hepatitis infections, as well as malignant tumors of the skin, mucosa, and gastrointestinal tract.² Lichen planus pemphigoides has been reported in a patient on entecavir for hepatitis B as well as in a patient treated for hepatitis C with interferon and ribavirin.¹ Lichen planus pemphigoides has been described in patients treated with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors enalapril, captopril, and ramipril.^4,5,7 UV phototherapy also has been associated with the development of LPP.⁶ Hydrochlorothiazide previously has been reported as a cause of drug-induced lichen planus.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms lichen planus pemphigoides and hydrochlorothiazide revealed no reports of hydrochlorothiazide-induced LPP.

Lichen planus pemphigoides demonstrates overlap with other blistering dermatoses, such as BP, bullous lupus erythematosus, and bullous lichen planus. Although histologically and immunologically similar to BP, LPP can be differentiated clinically by the presence of violaceous papules or plaques typical of lichen planus.⁹ Bullous pemphigoid is more common in individuals older than 70 years, whereas LPP tends to occur in middle-aged adults.² Bullous lupus erythematosus usually is associated with manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus and autoantibodies to collagen type VII.¹⁰ Salt-split skin studies demonstrate immunofluorescence on the dermal side of the split. Individuals affected by bullous lupus erythematosus typically have a history of photosensitivity.¹⁰ Blisters in LPP may form de novo from unaffected skin, whereas the bullae in bullous lichen planus are limited to existing lichenoid papules.⁹ The autoantibodies typical of LPP are absent in bullous lichen planus. Lichen planus actinicus is a variant of lichen planus that presents with annular, dyschromic, or violaceous plaques in a photodistributed pattern without bullous lesions.⁹

Lichen planus pemphigoides most commonly is treated with systemic corticosteroids. Topical steroids, dapsone, erythromycin, tetracycline and nicotinamide, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil have been reported as adjuncts to systemic steroid therapy.^2,11 Most reports describe treatment success with resolution of blistering lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

A skin biopsy from the right thigh demonstrated subepidermal blisters containing neutrophils (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence revealed linear basement membrane zone staining with C3 and trace staining with IgG (Figure 2), supporting a diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP). Oral prednisone—starting at 60 mg daily and tapered to 40 mg for a week, 20 mg for a week, then 10 mg for a month—along with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% to affected areas led to improvement. Hydrochlorothiazide and UV light therapy were discontinued. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and nicotinamide 500 mg twice daily prescribed as adjunctive therapy also led to improvement. The patient achieved remission with doxycycline and was doing well without prednisone; however, he experienced a flare of his disease about 6 months later and was started on mycophenolate mofetil 1 g twice daily after clearance from his gastroenterologist, given his history of hepatitis B. He has been doing well since starting mycophenolate mofetil.

Lichen planus pemphigoides is a rare autoimmune bullous dermatosis with features of both lichen planus and bullous pemphigoid.¹ Violaceous papules and tense bullae may be superimposed or arise independently. The chest, abdomen, back, and upper and lower extremities typically are involved.² Oral mucosal involvement with white reticular streaks or erosions and nail involvement have been reported.² Histopathologic and immunologic findings establish the diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides is associated with subepidermal bullae and linear deposits of IgG and C3 on the basement membrane zone.¹ Autoantibodies to bullous pemphigoid (BP) antigens BP180 and BP230 are associated with LPP.³ The pathogenesis of LPP remains unclear, but there are associations with chronic diseases, medications, and certain therapies.^1,4-6 Several case reports have linked LPP to chronic viral hepatitis infections, as well as malignant tumors of the skin, mucosa, and gastrointestinal tract.² Lichen planus pemphigoides has been reported in a patient on entecavir for hepatitis B as well as in a patient treated for hepatitis C with interferon and ribavirin.¹ Lichen planus pemphigoides has been described in patients treated with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors enalapril, captopril, and ramipril.^4,5,7 UV phototherapy also has been associated with the development of LPP.⁶ Hydrochlorothiazide previously has been reported as a cause of drug-induced lichen planus.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms lichen planus pemphigoides and hydrochlorothiazide revealed no reports of hydrochlorothiazide-induced LPP.

Lichen planus pemphigoides demonstrates overlap with other blistering dermatoses, such as BP, bullous lupus erythematosus, and bullous lichen planus. Although histologically and immunologically similar to BP, LPP can be differentiated clinically by the presence of violaceous papules or plaques typical of lichen planus.⁹ Bullous pemphigoid is more common in individuals older than 70 years, whereas LPP tends to occur in middle-aged adults.² Bullous lupus erythematosus usually is associated with manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus and autoantibodies to collagen type VII.¹⁰ Salt-split skin studies demonstrate immunofluorescence on the dermal side of the split. Individuals affected by bullous lupus erythematosus typically have a history of photosensitivity.¹⁰ Blisters in LPP may form de novo from unaffected skin, whereas the bullae in bullous lichen planus are limited to existing lichenoid papules.⁹ The autoantibodies typical of LPP are absent in bullous lichen planus. Lichen planus actinicus is a variant of lichen planus that presents with annular, dyschromic, or violaceous plaques in a photodistributed pattern without bullous lesions.⁹

Lichen planus pemphigoides most commonly is treated with systemic corticosteroids. Topical steroids, dapsone, erythromycin, tetracycline and nicotinamide, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil have been reported as adjuncts to systemic steroid therapy.^2,11 Most reports describe treatment success with resolution of blistering lesions.

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eleven high-income countries are on track to meet World Health Organization targets to eliminate hepatitis C infection by 2030, compared with 9 countries 2 years ago, researchers reported. But 28 countries, including the United States, are not expected to eliminate HCV until 2050.

“In the countries making progress, the common elements are political will, a clear national plan, and easing of restrictions on the cascade of care and testing,” Yuri Sanchez Gonzalez, PhD, director of health economics and outcomes research for biopharmaceutical company AbbVie said in an interview. That would include offering hepatitis C treatment to individuals who have liver fibrosis and those struggling with sobriety, he said. “We can’t overstate how much this is a massive driver of the hepatitis C epidemic.”

His research, presented at the digital edition of the International Liver Congress this week, showed more countries on target than in a study published 2 years ago in Liver International . “But it’s not enough,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez said. “We know that more than 80% of infections are in people who inject drugs. Stigmatization of drug use is still a very major issue.” Despite data clearly showing that countries who have harm-reduction programs make progress, “in many countries these programs are still illegal.”

To evaluate which countries are on target to eliminate hepatitis C by 2030, researchers performed Markov disease progression models of HCV infection in 45 high-income countries. The results showed that Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are “in the green” (on target for 2030).

Austria, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Korea are “in the yellow” (on target for 2040), and 28 remaining countries, including the United States, are “in the red,” with targets estimated to be met by 2050.

Compared with an analysis performed 2 years ago, South Korea moved from green to yellow, while Canada, Germany, and Sweden moved from red to green. 

Researchers say that the countries moving the needle are the ones addressing barriers to care.
 

EASL: Eliminate barriers to treatment

During this week’s Congress, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) launched a policy statement recommending breaking down all barriers that prevent people who inject drugs from getting access to hepatitis C treatment, including encouragement of laws and policies that “decriminalize drug use, drug possession and drug users themselves,” said statement coauthor Mojca Maticic, MD, PhD, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

“To reach the desired WHO goal, combining decriminalization of personal drug consumption and integrated interventions that include hepatitis C testing and treatment should be implemented,” she added. We need to adopt “an approach based on public health promotion, respect for human rights, and evidence.”

Although harm reduction is the top strategy for making 2030 targets, having precision data also helps a lot.

“High-quality data and harm-reduction innovation to curb the overdose crisis has moved us out of the red and into the green,” Canadian researcher Jordan Feld, MD, MPH, University of Toronto, said in an interview. He points to British Columbia, Canada’s third-most populous province, putting harm reduction programs in place as key to Canadian progress.

“Given the increasing opioid epidemic, you’re creating yourself a bigger problem if you don’t treat this population,” Dr. Feld said. When a person needs 6 months to get sober in order to be treated for HCV, that’s more potential time to pass the infection to others. His study, also presented at ILC this week, outlines anticipated timing of hepatitis C in Canada’s four most populous provinces (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta), and shows British Columbia will reach targets by 2028.

Lifting all restrictions clearly helps, Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez reported. He pointed to Sweden as a good example, a country that recently lifted HCV treatment restrictions for individuals living with fibrosis. Sweden moved from a red to a green spot in this analysis and is now on target for 2030.

“As long as everyone who needs treatment gets treatment, you can make tremendous progress,” he said.

Keeping track is also essential to moving the needle. Since the WHO has no enforcement power, “these studies, which offer a report card of progress, really matter,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez explained. When a country knows where they stand, they are more likely to take action to change. “Nobody likes to be shown in the red.”

Still, “it’s not a shaming exercise,” he said. It’s about starting a conversation, showing who’s on track, and sharing how to get on track. “Knowing that there is something in your power to move the needle toward elimination by learning from your neighbors is powerful – often, it just takes political will.”

Dr. Feld has received consulting fees from AbbVie. Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez is on staff as the Director of Economics at AbbVie. Dr. Maticic has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand the risks and treatment for hepatitis C by sharing AGA GI Patient Center education at http://ow.ly/xV2S30r8L29. 

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

Eleven high-income countries are on track to meet World Health Organization targets to eliminate hepatitis C infection by 2030, compared with 9 countries 2 years ago, researchers reported. But 28 countries, including the United States, are not expected to eliminate HCV until 2050.

“In the countries making progress, the common elements are political will, a clear national plan, and easing of restrictions on the cascade of care and testing,” Yuri Sanchez Gonzalez, PhD, director of health economics and outcomes research for biopharmaceutical company AbbVie said in an interview. That would include offering hepatitis C treatment to individuals who have liver fibrosis and those struggling with sobriety, he said. “We can’t overstate how much this is a massive driver of the hepatitis C epidemic.”

His research, presented at the digital edition of the International Liver Congress this week, showed more countries on target than in a study published 2 years ago in Liver International . “But it’s not enough,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez said. “We know that more than 80% of infections are in people who inject drugs. Stigmatization of drug use is still a very major issue.” Despite data clearly showing that countries who have harm-reduction programs make progress, “in many countries these programs are still illegal.”

To evaluate which countries are on target to eliminate hepatitis C by 2030, researchers performed Markov disease progression models of HCV infection in 45 high-income countries. The results showed that Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are “in the green” (on target for 2030).

Austria, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Korea are “in the yellow” (on target for 2040), and 28 remaining countries, including the United States, are “in the red,” with targets estimated to be met by 2050.

Compared with an analysis performed 2 years ago, South Korea moved from green to yellow, while Canada, Germany, and Sweden moved from red to green. 

Researchers say that the countries moving the needle are the ones addressing barriers to care.
 

EASL: Eliminate barriers to treatment

During this week’s Congress, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) launched a policy statement recommending breaking down all barriers that prevent people who inject drugs from getting access to hepatitis C treatment, including encouragement of laws and policies that “decriminalize drug use, drug possession and drug users themselves,” said statement coauthor Mojca Maticic, MD, PhD, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

“To reach the desired WHO goal, combining decriminalization of personal drug consumption and integrated interventions that include hepatitis C testing and treatment should be implemented,” she added. We need to adopt “an approach based on public health promotion, respect for human rights, and evidence.”

Although harm reduction is the top strategy for making 2030 targets, having precision data also helps a lot.

“High-quality data and harm-reduction innovation to curb the overdose crisis has moved us out of the red and into the green,” Canadian researcher Jordan Feld, MD, MPH, University of Toronto, said in an interview. He points to British Columbia, Canada’s third-most populous province, putting harm reduction programs in place as key to Canadian progress.

“Given the increasing opioid epidemic, you’re creating yourself a bigger problem if you don’t treat this population,” Dr. Feld said. When a person needs 6 months to get sober in order to be treated for HCV, that’s more potential time to pass the infection to others. His study, also presented at ILC this week, outlines anticipated timing of hepatitis C in Canada’s four most populous provinces (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta), and shows British Columbia will reach targets by 2028.

Lifting all restrictions clearly helps, Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez reported. He pointed to Sweden as a good example, a country that recently lifted HCV treatment restrictions for individuals living with fibrosis. Sweden moved from a red to a green spot in this analysis and is now on target for 2030.

“As long as everyone who needs treatment gets treatment, you can make tremendous progress,” he said.

Keeping track is also essential to moving the needle. Since the WHO has no enforcement power, “these studies, which offer a report card of progress, really matter,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez explained. When a country knows where they stand, they are more likely to take action to change. “Nobody likes to be shown in the red.”

Still, “it’s not a shaming exercise,” he said. It’s about starting a conversation, showing who’s on track, and sharing how to get on track. “Knowing that there is something in your power to move the needle toward elimination by learning from your neighbors is powerful – often, it just takes political will.”

Dr. Feld has received consulting fees from AbbVie. Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez is on staff as the Director of Economics at AbbVie. Dr. Maticic has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand the risks and treatment for hepatitis C by sharing AGA GI Patient Center education at http://ow.ly/xV2S30r8L29. 

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

Eleven high-income countries are on track to meet World Health Organization targets to eliminate hepatitis C infection by 2030, compared with 9 countries 2 years ago, researchers reported. But 28 countries, including the United States, are not expected to eliminate HCV until 2050.

“In the countries making progress, the common elements are political will, a clear national plan, and easing of restrictions on the cascade of care and testing,” Yuri Sanchez Gonzalez, PhD, director of health economics and outcomes research for biopharmaceutical company AbbVie said in an interview. That would include offering hepatitis C treatment to individuals who have liver fibrosis and those struggling with sobriety, he said. “We can’t overstate how much this is a massive driver of the hepatitis C epidemic.”

His research, presented at the digital edition of the International Liver Congress this week, showed more countries on target than in a study published 2 years ago in Liver International . “But it’s not enough,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez said. “We know that more than 80% of infections are in people who inject drugs. Stigmatization of drug use is still a very major issue.” Despite data clearly showing that countries who have harm-reduction programs make progress, “in many countries these programs are still illegal.”

To evaluate which countries are on target to eliminate hepatitis C by 2030, researchers performed Markov disease progression models of HCV infection in 45 high-income countries. The results showed that Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are “in the green” (on target for 2030).

Austria, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Korea are “in the yellow” (on target for 2040), and 28 remaining countries, including the United States, are “in the red,” with targets estimated to be met by 2050.

Compared with an analysis performed 2 years ago, South Korea moved from green to yellow, while Canada, Germany, and Sweden moved from red to green. 

Researchers say that the countries moving the needle are the ones addressing barriers to care.
 

EASL: Eliminate barriers to treatment

During this week’s Congress, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) launched a policy statement recommending breaking down all barriers that prevent people who inject drugs from getting access to hepatitis C treatment, including encouragement of laws and policies that “decriminalize drug use, drug possession and drug users themselves,” said statement coauthor Mojca Maticic, MD, PhD, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

“To reach the desired WHO goal, combining decriminalization of personal drug consumption and integrated interventions that include hepatitis C testing and treatment should be implemented,” she added. We need to adopt “an approach based on public health promotion, respect for human rights, and evidence.”

Although harm reduction is the top strategy for making 2030 targets, having precision data also helps a lot.

“High-quality data and harm-reduction innovation to curb the overdose crisis has moved us out of the red and into the green,” Canadian researcher Jordan Feld, MD, MPH, University of Toronto, said in an interview. He points to British Columbia, Canada’s third-most populous province, putting harm reduction programs in place as key to Canadian progress.

“Given the increasing opioid epidemic, you’re creating yourself a bigger problem if you don’t treat this population,” Dr. Feld said. When a person needs 6 months to get sober in order to be treated for HCV, that’s more potential time to pass the infection to others. His study, also presented at ILC this week, outlines anticipated timing of hepatitis C in Canada’s four most populous provinces (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta), and shows British Columbia will reach targets by 2028.

Lifting all restrictions clearly helps, Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez reported. He pointed to Sweden as a good example, a country that recently lifted HCV treatment restrictions for individuals living with fibrosis. Sweden moved from a red to a green spot in this analysis and is now on target for 2030.

“As long as everyone who needs treatment gets treatment, you can make tremendous progress,” he said.

Keeping track is also essential to moving the needle. Since the WHO has no enforcement power, “these studies, which offer a report card of progress, really matter,” Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez explained. When a country knows where they stand, they are more likely to take action to change. “Nobody likes to be shown in the red.”

Still, “it’s not a shaming exercise,” he said. It’s about starting a conversation, showing who’s on track, and sharing how to get on track. “Knowing that there is something in your power to move the needle toward elimination by learning from your neighbors is powerful – often, it just takes political will.”

Dr. Feld has received consulting fees from AbbVie. Dr. Sanchez Gonzalez is on staff as the Director of Economics at AbbVie. Dr. Maticic has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand the risks and treatment for hepatitis C by sharing AGA GI Patient Center education at http://ow.ly/xV2S30r8L29. 

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

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

A petition on Change.org is seeking to prevent the American Academy of Dermatology’s president-elect from taking office in early 2021, claiming that his ties to private equity make him too conflicted for the job.

The petition, created anonymously, appeared in early August and is seeking 1,500 signatures – calculated as the number needed to initiate a vote to recall Mark Kaufmann, MD. Dr. Kaufmann was voted president-elect of the AAD and its sister organization, the AAD Association, in April. He takes the position in 2021 and would become president in 2022.

The petition objects to the fact that Dr. Kaufmann is the chief medical officer of Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery (ADCS), the nation’s largest private equity–backed dermatology group. It claims that he took the position in July, after being elected, which it portrays as dishonest.

The petition said Dr. Kaufmann “will have concurrent fiduciary responsibilities to both the AAD and a corporation whose interests may or may not be aligned with the AAD.” Even if Dr. Kaufmann chose to recuse himself from some decisions, that would be a disservice to the AAD, said the petition, which added that he “cannot serve two masters simultaneously.”

Several efforts were made to reach Dr. Kaufmann for a comment, with no responses at press time. At press time, ACDS had not responded to a request for comment.

In response to questions, Bruce H. Thiers, MD, president of the AAD/A, said that the organization has no policy barring officers from holding capital in a private equity (PE)–backed corporation, but that any elected officer is subject to the organization’s “fiduciary duties and obligations.”

The AAD/A shared a 7-page administrative regulation on disclosure of outside interests and management of conflicts of interest. The policy notes that employment by a private equity group is considered a potential conflict of interest, but so is employment by a government agency, solo practice, academic medical center, or multiple other models. Key leaders, including the president, president-elect, and immediate past president, are required to divest themselves of any direct financial relationships with industry during their entire term.

Members who do not disclose potential conflicts each year and who fail to update their disclosure within 30 days of acquiring a new financial relationship “will lose the right to hold office, serve in the governance structure and, except in unusual circumstances approved in advance by the Board of Directors, to participate in Academy programs,” according to the policy.
 

Petitioners lament conflicts, private equity

At press time, the petition had more than 1,100 signatures. Most who signed indicated in their comments that they believed that Dr. Kaufmann’s association with private equity disqualifies him.

“I believe private equity should not have a place at the table of the governing body of the AAD,” commented Cynthia Abbott, MD, an Atlanta dermatologist. In his comment, Ron Birnbaum, MD a Los Angeles–based dermatologist, wrote, “I oppose the movement to PE-based purchase and consolidation of practices,” adding that he had not voted for Dr. Kaufmann in April. Dr. Kaufmann “might resolve the conflict of interest by resigning from the job of CMO of ADCS,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum.

“I have great respect for Dr. Kaufmann but am very troubled by the influence of PE infiltration into dermatology,” Mark Gaughan, MD, a dermatologist in Durango, Colo., wrote in the petition.

The petition seeks 1,500 signatures – which is 10% of the AAD membership. That’s key because, as per AAD administrative rules, members can initiate the removal of a board member through a petition that is signed by 10% of voting members or by a two-thirds vote of entire board of directors.

Dr. Thiers said the AAD/A’s “administrative regulations do not cover the removal of an elected officer prior to the start of his or her term.” Thus, it’s not even clear that Dr. Kaufmann could be recalled before he took office in 2021.

Dr. Kaufmann previously served on the AAD/A board of directors for 4 years and is currently deputy chair of the AAD/A’s Patient Access and Payer Relations Committee. He is chair of the AAD’s Workgroup on Innovation in Payment and Delivery Actinic Keratosis Alternative Payment Model Development and is a member of numerous other AAD/A committees, including: the AAD budget committee; the AAD appointment selection committee; the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and Current Procedural Terminology committee; the work group on innovation in payment and delivery; the work group on ICD-10; and the work group on rapid response team Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Since March 2019, Dr. Kaufmann has also served as the chief medical officer of Florham Park, N.J.–based MoleSafe, a company that provides full-body skin cancer screening directly to patients.

In an interview, former AAD president Daniel Siegel, MD, said that he believes the petition is an unwarranted attack. “Mark is an honest upstanding individual who has, in the almost 2 decades I’ve known and worked with him, always put the interests of the specialty and the AAD ahead of any personal interests,” said Dr. Siegel of the department of dermatology at State University of New York, Brooklyn. Dr. Siegel also disclosed that he is chief compliance officer for the Florida-based Skin and Cancer Associates, a large group of practices owned by private equity.

Dr. Kaufmann is “an objective person who has no difficulty declaring a conflict where there is one,” Dr. Siegel said.

But Sailesh Konda, MD, a critic of private equity in dermatology, who signed the petition, said in an interview that he believed the “membership is rightfully concerned and responding to these new conflicts of interest with a valid petition.”

“This is readily apparent with a petition signed by more than 1,000 dermatologists,” added Dr. Konda of the department of dermatology at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

It might be hard to erase all potential conflicts at the AAD. Some members work for industry, some for academia, and some for government agencies – all of which come with their own biases.

But the AAD will not publicly release disclosures for members, board members, or officers. Those disclosures are compiled in an internal AAD database, but the organization leaves it up to each individual to decide what they will make public.
 

Second anonymous conflict petition

It is not clear what will happen with the Dr. Kaufmann recall effort, but it is not the first time that a petition has taken aim at an AAD official. An October 2019 petition – also submitted by an anonymous dermatologist – sought to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from the AAD board.

The petition noted Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in creating the American Dermatology Board of Physician Assistants, a group that aims to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists. Dr. Dinehart’s “concurrent relationships with both organizations is a major conflict of interest,” said the petition, which garnered some 4,200 signatures – far in excess of what is required to initiate a removal vote.

That led to a unanimous decision by the AAD/A board to present the membership with a resolution to remove Dr. Dinehart. Some 6,400 votes were cast, with 97% approving Dr. Dinehart’s removal.

He is no longer a member of the AAD/A board.

A petition on Change.org is seeking to prevent the American Academy of Dermatology’s president-elect from taking office in early 2021, claiming that his ties to private equity make him too conflicted for the job.

The petition, created anonymously, appeared in early August and is seeking 1,500 signatures – calculated as the number needed to initiate a vote to recall Mark Kaufmann, MD. Dr. Kaufmann was voted president-elect of the AAD and its sister organization, the AAD Association, in April. He takes the position in 2021 and would become president in 2022.

The petition objects to the fact that Dr. Kaufmann is the chief medical officer of Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery (ADCS), the nation’s largest private equity–backed dermatology group. It claims that he took the position in July, after being elected, which it portrays as dishonest.

The petition said Dr. Kaufmann “will have concurrent fiduciary responsibilities to both the AAD and a corporation whose interests may or may not be aligned with the AAD.” Even if Dr. Kaufmann chose to recuse himself from some decisions, that would be a disservice to the AAD, said the petition, which added that he “cannot serve two masters simultaneously.”

Several efforts were made to reach Dr. Kaufmann for a comment, with no responses at press time. At press time, ACDS had not responded to a request for comment.

In response to questions, Bruce H. Thiers, MD, president of the AAD/A, said that the organization has no policy barring officers from holding capital in a private equity (PE)–backed corporation, but that any elected officer is subject to the organization’s “fiduciary duties and obligations.”

The AAD/A shared a 7-page administrative regulation on disclosure of outside interests and management of conflicts of interest. The policy notes that employment by a private equity group is considered a potential conflict of interest, but so is employment by a government agency, solo practice, academic medical center, or multiple other models. Key leaders, including the president, president-elect, and immediate past president, are required to divest themselves of any direct financial relationships with industry during their entire term.

Members who do not disclose potential conflicts each year and who fail to update their disclosure within 30 days of acquiring a new financial relationship “will lose the right to hold office, serve in the governance structure and, except in unusual circumstances approved in advance by the Board of Directors, to participate in Academy programs,” according to the policy.
 

Petitioners lament conflicts, private equity

At press time, the petition had more than 1,100 signatures. Most who signed indicated in their comments that they believed that Dr. Kaufmann’s association with private equity disqualifies him.

“I believe private equity should not have a place at the table of the governing body of the AAD,” commented Cynthia Abbott, MD, an Atlanta dermatologist. In his comment, Ron Birnbaum, MD a Los Angeles–based dermatologist, wrote, “I oppose the movement to PE-based purchase and consolidation of practices,” adding that he had not voted for Dr. Kaufmann in April. Dr. Kaufmann “might resolve the conflict of interest by resigning from the job of CMO of ADCS,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum.

“I have great respect for Dr. Kaufmann but am very troubled by the influence of PE infiltration into dermatology,” Mark Gaughan, MD, a dermatologist in Durango, Colo., wrote in the petition.

The petition seeks 1,500 signatures – which is 10% of the AAD membership. That’s key because, as per AAD administrative rules, members can initiate the removal of a board member through a petition that is signed by 10% of voting members or by a two-thirds vote of entire board of directors.

Dr. Thiers said the AAD/A’s “administrative regulations do not cover the removal of an elected officer prior to the start of his or her term.” Thus, it’s not even clear that Dr. Kaufmann could be recalled before he took office in 2021.

Dr. Kaufmann previously served on the AAD/A board of directors for 4 years and is currently deputy chair of the AAD/A’s Patient Access and Payer Relations Committee. He is chair of the AAD’s Workgroup on Innovation in Payment and Delivery Actinic Keratosis Alternative Payment Model Development and is a member of numerous other AAD/A committees, including: the AAD budget committee; the AAD appointment selection committee; the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and Current Procedural Terminology committee; the work group on innovation in payment and delivery; the work group on ICD-10; and the work group on rapid response team Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Since March 2019, Dr. Kaufmann has also served as the chief medical officer of Florham Park, N.J.–based MoleSafe, a company that provides full-body skin cancer screening directly to patients.

In an interview, former AAD president Daniel Siegel, MD, said that he believes the petition is an unwarranted attack. “Mark is an honest upstanding individual who has, in the almost 2 decades I’ve known and worked with him, always put the interests of the specialty and the AAD ahead of any personal interests,” said Dr. Siegel of the department of dermatology at State University of New York, Brooklyn. Dr. Siegel also disclosed that he is chief compliance officer for the Florida-based Skin and Cancer Associates, a large group of practices owned by private equity.

Dr. Kaufmann is “an objective person who has no difficulty declaring a conflict where there is one,” Dr. Siegel said.

But Sailesh Konda, MD, a critic of private equity in dermatology, who signed the petition, said in an interview that he believed the “membership is rightfully concerned and responding to these new conflicts of interest with a valid petition.”

“This is readily apparent with a petition signed by more than 1,000 dermatologists,” added Dr. Konda of the department of dermatology at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

It might be hard to erase all potential conflicts at the AAD. Some members work for industry, some for academia, and some for government agencies – all of which come with their own biases.

But the AAD will not publicly release disclosures for members, board members, or officers. Those disclosures are compiled in an internal AAD database, but the organization leaves it up to each individual to decide what they will make public.
 

Second anonymous conflict petition

It is not clear what will happen with the Dr. Kaufmann recall effort, but it is not the first time that a petition has taken aim at an AAD official. An October 2019 petition – also submitted by an anonymous dermatologist – sought to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from the AAD board.

The petition noted Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in creating the American Dermatology Board of Physician Assistants, a group that aims to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists. Dr. Dinehart’s “concurrent relationships with both organizations is a major conflict of interest,” said the petition, which garnered some 4,200 signatures – far in excess of what is required to initiate a removal vote.

That led to a unanimous decision by the AAD/A board to present the membership with a resolution to remove Dr. Dinehart. Some 6,400 votes were cast, with 97% approving Dr. Dinehart’s removal.

He is no longer a member of the AAD/A board.

A petition on Change.org is seeking to prevent the American Academy of Dermatology’s president-elect from taking office in early 2021, claiming that his ties to private equity make him too conflicted for the job.

The petition, created anonymously, appeared in early August and is seeking 1,500 signatures – calculated as the number needed to initiate a vote to recall Mark Kaufmann, MD. Dr. Kaufmann was voted president-elect of the AAD and its sister organization, the AAD Association, in April. He takes the position in 2021 and would become president in 2022.

The petition objects to the fact that Dr. Kaufmann is the chief medical officer of Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery (ADCS), the nation’s largest private equity–backed dermatology group. It claims that he took the position in July, after being elected, which it portrays as dishonest.

The petition said Dr. Kaufmann “will have concurrent fiduciary responsibilities to both the AAD and a corporation whose interests may or may not be aligned with the AAD.” Even if Dr. Kaufmann chose to recuse himself from some decisions, that would be a disservice to the AAD, said the petition, which added that he “cannot serve two masters simultaneously.”

Several efforts were made to reach Dr. Kaufmann for a comment, with no responses at press time. At press time, ACDS had not responded to a request for comment.

In response to questions, Bruce H. Thiers, MD, president of the AAD/A, said that the organization has no policy barring officers from holding capital in a private equity (PE)–backed corporation, but that any elected officer is subject to the organization’s “fiduciary duties and obligations.”

The AAD/A shared a 7-page administrative regulation on disclosure of outside interests and management of conflicts of interest. The policy notes that employment by a private equity group is considered a potential conflict of interest, but so is employment by a government agency, solo practice, academic medical center, or multiple other models. Key leaders, including the president, president-elect, and immediate past president, are required to divest themselves of any direct financial relationships with industry during their entire term.

Members who do not disclose potential conflicts each year and who fail to update their disclosure within 30 days of acquiring a new financial relationship “will lose the right to hold office, serve in the governance structure and, except in unusual circumstances approved in advance by the Board of Directors, to participate in Academy programs,” according to the policy.
 

Petitioners lament conflicts, private equity

At press time, the petition had more than 1,100 signatures. Most who signed indicated in their comments that they believed that Dr. Kaufmann’s association with private equity disqualifies him.

“I believe private equity should not have a place at the table of the governing body of the AAD,” commented Cynthia Abbott, MD, an Atlanta dermatologist. In his comment, Ron Birnbaum, MD a Los Angeles–based dermatologist, wrote, “I oppose the movement to PE-based purchase and consolidation of practices,” adding that he had not voted for Dr. Kaufmann in April. Dr. Kaufmann “might resolve the conflict of interest by resigning from the job of CMO of ADCS,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum.

“I have great respect for Dr. Kaufmann but am very troubled by the influence of PE infiltration into dermatology,” Mark Gaughan, MD, a dermatologist in Durango, Colo., wrote in the petition.

The petition seeks 1,500 signatures – which is 10% of the AAD membership. That’s key because, as per AAD administrative rules, members can initiate the removal of a board member through a petition that is signed by 10% of voting members or by a two-thirds vote of entire board of directors.

Dr. Thiers said the AAD/A’s “administrative regulations do not cover the removal of an elected officer prior to the start of his or her term.” Thus, it’s not even clear that Dr. Kaufmann could be recalled before he took office in 2021.

Dr. Kaufmann previously served on the AAD/A board of directors for 4 years and is currently deputy chair of the AAD/A’s Patient Access and Payer Relations Committee. He is chair of the AAD’s Workgroup on Innovation in Payment and Delivery Actinic Keratosis Alternative Payment Model Development and is a member of numerous other AAD/A committees, including: the AAD budget committee; the AAD appointment selection committee; the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and Current Procedural Terminology committee; the work group on innovation in payment and delivery; the work group on ICD-10; and the work group on rapid response team Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Since March 2019, Dr. Kaufmann has also served as the chief medical officer of Florham Park, N.J.–based MoleSafe, a company that provides full-body skin cancer screening directly to patients.

In an interview, former AAD president Daniel Siegel, MD, said that he believes the petition is an unwarranted attack. “Mark is an honest upstanding individual who has, in the almost 2 decades I’ve known and worked with him, always put the interests of the specialty and the AAD ahead of any personal interests,” said Dr. Siegel of the department of dermatology at State University of New York, Brooklyn. Dr. Siegel also disclosed that he is chief compliance officer for the Florida-based Skin and Cancer Associates, a large group of practices owned by private equity.

Dr. Kaufmann is “an objective person who has no difficulty declaring a conflict where there is one,” Dr. Siegel said.

But Sailesh Konda, MD, a critic of private equity in dermatology, who signed the petition, said in an interview that he believed the “membership is rightfully concerned and responding to these new conflicts of interest with a valid petition.”

“This is readily apparent with a petition signed by more than 1,000 dermatologists,” added Dr. Konda of the department of dermatology at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

It might be hard to erase all potential conflicts at the AAD. Some members work for industry, some for academia, and some for government agencies – all of which come with their own biases.

But the AAD will not publicly release disclosures for members, board members, or officers. Those disclosures are compiled in an internal AAD database, but the organization leaves it up to each individual to decide what they will make public.
 

Second anonymous conflict petition

It is not clear what will happen with the Dr. Kaufmann recall effort, but it is not the first time that a petition has taken aim at an AAD official. An October 2019 petition – also submitted by an anonymous dermatologist – sought to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from the AAD board.

The petition noted Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in creating the American Dermatology Board of Physician Assistants, a group that aims to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists. Dr. Dinehart’s “concurrent relationships with both organizations is a major conflict of interest,” said the petition, which garnered some 4,200 signatures – far in excess of what is required to initiate a removal vote.

That led to a unanimous decision by the AAD/A board to present the membership with a resolution to remove Dr. Dinehart. Some 6,400 votes were cast, with 97% approving Dr. Dinehart’s removal.

He is no longer a member of the AAD/A board.