User login
FDA approves medication to treat heavy menstrual bleeding related to fibroids
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
FDA recalls extended-release metformin due to NDMA impurities
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.
Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.
NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.
Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.
The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.
It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.
In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.
By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
Requests for recall apply only to affected products
The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.
“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.
The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.
Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.
The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.
Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.
“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.
For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.
Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.
NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.
Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.
The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.
It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.
In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.
By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
Requests for recall apply only to affected products
The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.
“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.
The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.
Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.
The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.
Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.
“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.
For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.
Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.
NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.
Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.
The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.
It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.
In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.
By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
Requests for recall apply only to affected products
The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.
“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.
The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.
Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.
The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.
Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.
“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.
For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays first tau radiotracer to aid Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis
to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.
“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.
“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.
“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
Clinical trial results
Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.
The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.
The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.
Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.
According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
Initial limited availability
The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).
The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.
In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.
The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.
The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.
The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”
Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.
“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.
“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.
“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
Clinical trial results
Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.
The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.
The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.
Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.
According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
Initial limited availability
The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).
The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.
In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.
The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.
The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.
The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”
Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.
“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.
“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.
“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
Clinical trial results
Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.
The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.
The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.
Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.
According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
Initial limited availability
The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).
The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.
In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.
The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.
The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.
The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”
Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
APA, others lobby to make COVID-19 telehealth waivers permanent
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.
“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.
The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.
The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.
Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.
“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.
Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
Game changer
The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.
Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.
“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.
Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”
Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.
Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.
“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.
Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.
The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
Increased access to care
Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. he said.
For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.
Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.
“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.
Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
Far fewer no-shows
Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.
Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.
“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.
For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.
As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.
The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.
“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.
Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.
“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.
The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.
The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.
Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.
“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.
Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
Game changer
The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.
Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.
“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.
Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”
Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.
Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.
“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.
Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.
The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
Increased access to care
Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. he said.
For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.
Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.
“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.
Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
Far fewer no-shows
Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.
Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.
“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.
For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.
As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.
The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.
“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.
Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.
“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.
The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.
The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.
Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.
“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.
Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
Game changer
The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.
Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.
“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.
Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”
Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.
Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.
“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.
Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.
The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
Increased access to care
Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. he said.
For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.
Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.
“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.
Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
Far fewer no-shows
Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.
Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.
“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.
For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.
As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.
The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.
“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.
Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Loss-frame’ approach makes psoriasis patients more agreeable to treatment
, held virtually.
“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”
In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).
He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.
In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.
Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.
Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.
“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”
Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.
SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.
, held virtually.
“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”
In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).
He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.
In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.
Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.
Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.
“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”
Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.
SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.
, held virtually.
“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”
In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).
He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.
In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.
Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.
Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.
“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”
Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.
SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.
FROM SID 2020
COVID-19 crushers: An appreciation of hospitalists
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
COVID-19 may increase risk of preterm birth and cesarean delivery
Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.
Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.
To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.
The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.
“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.
Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.
“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”
Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.
“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.
Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.
“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H1N1) pandemic,” she said.
“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.
One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.
Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.
To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.
The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.
“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.
Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.
“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”
Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.
“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.
Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.
“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H1N1) pandemic,” she said.
“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.
One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.
Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.
To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.
The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.
“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.
Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.
“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”
Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.
“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.
Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.
“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H1N1) pandemic,” she said.
“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.
One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Testing the limits of medical technology
On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.
Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
Our dangerous lack of preparation
Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.
I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
The risks of flying blind
When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.
Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.
Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
Is anyone safe?
We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.
As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.
Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
Our dangerous lack of preparation
Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.
I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
The risks of flying blind
When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.
Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.
Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
Is anyone safe?
We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.
As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.
Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
Our dangerous lack of preparation
Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.
I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
The risks of flying blind
When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.
Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.
Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
Is anyone safe?
We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.
As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
Scientific doubt tempers COVID-19 vaccine optimism
US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.
“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.
But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.
The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
Recent developments
On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”
On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.
Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”
The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.
Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.
Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”
The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.
That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.
By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
“Take these things with a grain of salt”
Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.
“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.
“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”
As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”
Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.
She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”
The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.
As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”
On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”
Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.
Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
History raises safety concerns
However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”
He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.
Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.
“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”
He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.
Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”
History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.
An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.
CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.
She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.
Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
Live attenuated vaccine
Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method — a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.
He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.
The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.
“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”
Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.
He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”
“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.
The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
A call for unified strategies
Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.
Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.
Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.
Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.
Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.
“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.
“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”
Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.
“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.
But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.
The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
Recent developments
On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”
On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.
Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”
The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.
Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.
Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”
The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.
That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.
By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
“Take these things with a grain of salt”
Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.
“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.
“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”
As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”
Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.
She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”
The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.
As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”
On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”
Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.
Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
History raises safety concerns
However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”
He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.
Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.
“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”
He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.
Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”
History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.
An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.
CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.
She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.
Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
Live attenuated vaccine
Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method — a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.
He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.
The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.
“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”
Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.
He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”
“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.
The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
A call for unified strategies
Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.
Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.
Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.
Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.
Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.
“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.
“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”
Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.
“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.
But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.
The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
Recent developments
On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”
On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.
Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”
The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.
Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.
Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”
The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.
That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.
By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
“Take these things with a grain of salt”
Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.
“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.
“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”
As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”
Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.
She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”
The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.
As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”
On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”
Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.
Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
History raises safety concerns
However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”
He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.
Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.
“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”
He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.
Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”
History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.
An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.
CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.
She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.
Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
Live attenuated vaccine
Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method — a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.
He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.
The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.
“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”
Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.
He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”
“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.
The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
A call for unified strategies
Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.
Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.
Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.
Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.
Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.
“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.
“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”
Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians still unaware of need for genetic testing in NSCLC
Moreover, the majority of these clinicians believe that fewer than 50% of patients in their country undergo molecular testing, the same survey showed.
The survey was conducted by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC); 2537 questionnaires from 102 countries were returned and analyzed.
It was published online May 20 in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
The results are concerning because “the risk of death for patients with NSCLC is substantially reduced when a gene alteration is identified and the available targeted therapy is administered,” the authors emphasize.
“Specific protocols to initiate reflex testing for guideline-recommended molecular markers would help providers consider molecular testing earlier and optimize tissue,” they suggest.
Surprised that clinicians were unaware of guidelines
“I was not surprised that we found suboptimal testing rates based on other research that has demonstrated the need to improve the quality of lung cancer in some areas,” corresponding author Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, University of Memphis, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News in an email.
“However, I was surprised that so many respondents were unaware of guidelines,” he said.
The College of American Pathologists, IASLC, and Association for Molecular Pathology established evidence-based standards for the selection of NSCLC patients for molecular testing in 2013, and these guidelines were subsequently endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“We suspect that the level of access a provider has to targeted therapies does affect molecular testing rates,” Smeltzer acknowledged.
Molecular testing survey
“The survey included a seven-question introduction for all respondents and then divided respondents into one of three tracks,” the authors explain.
These tracks included respondents who requested tests and who treated patients (medical oncologists), those who analyzed and interpreted assays (pathologists), and those who acquired tissue samples (surgeons, pulmonologists, radiologists).
Countries were also grouped into five geographic regions — Asia, Europe, Latin America, United States, and Canada — and the rest of the world (ROW).
“Overall, respondents reported that molecular testing rates were lower than we would like but they were not satisfied with the current state of testing, and they reported higher testing rates in their own clinics,” Smeltzer noted.
However, when tests were ordered, “we found 99% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered tests for EGFR, 95% for ALK, 79% for ROS1, and < 50% ordered other tests,” the authors observe.
Indeed, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 were the top three tests ordered across all regions, though less frequently so in the ROW, they add.
More than half of requesting/treating track respondents also order multiplex assays, although Latin America and the ROW did this less frequently than other regions.
Over 90% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated that they perform EGFR testing, while 83% of the same group do ALK testing; 69% tested for KRAS; 68% for BRAF, 64% for ROS1, and 56% for HER2. Fewer than half of them performed other tests.
Survey results also showed that EGFR, ALK, and KRAS are the top three tests performed across all regions, with no regional differences.
“Respondents also reported on the acquisition and testing of liquid biopsies,” survey authors point out.
Here, 87% of requesting/treating track respondents indicated that they “sometimes” request molecular testing on liquid biopsies, but the proportions of those who sometimes use liquid biopsy varied by region and were lowest in Latin America and the ROW.
A lower proportion of those who perform and interpret assays, at 69%, also offer tests on liquid biopsies, but this percentage, too, varied significantly by region, being the least frequently done in the United States and Canada, as well as in the ROW.
All the above tests are for genetic mutations or alterations that guide clinicians on use of targeted therapy directed at particular mutations, for example, drugs like erlotinib for EGFR and crizotinib for ALK.
However, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has also made a big impact on the treatment of NSCLC, and the use of these agents is sometimes guided by testing for programmed cell-death ligand (PD-L1).
PD-L1 is not a molecular marker per se, the authors note.
Nevertheless, “we found that 84% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered PD-L1 and 68% of respondents who perform or interpret assays report PD-L1 is offered in their own lab,” the authors observe.
Smeltzer commented that both approaches — targeted therapies and immunotherapy — have made inroads into the treatment of NSCLC, in some cases replacing chemotherapy.
He emphasized that “it is important to know if a specific oncogene driver is present before initiating immunotherapy treatment,” and noted that when tissue is sent out for both types of testing, the results for PD-L1 are usually available before the results for the full molecular testing panel are back.
Barriers to testing
“The most frequent barrier to molecular testing in every region was cost,” the survey authors note.
Insufficient amount of tumor cells was the main reason for molecular testing failures along with inadequate tissue quality.
The majority of respondents who order tests and treat patients were sure that the laboratories they use perform appropriate validation of molecular tests, while almost all of those who perform or interpret assays said they perform validation tests in their labs.
Only 30% of respondents who request tests and treat patients have access to molecular testing labs within their own institutions; the remaining respondents have to outsource testing completely or partially.
Most respondents who test and treat patients also have multidisciplinary tumor boards to discuss patients with NSCLC, but almost one quarter of the same group indicated their board met less than once a month.
“Turnaround time is a barrier to molecular testing across the world,” the authors continue, with 29% of those who request tests and treat patients reporting that it typically takes 10 days or more to receive molecular testing results.
Interestingly, the highest percentage of respondents who reported this long turnaround time were in North America.
Perhaps encouragingly, 41% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated they were dissatisfied with the condition of molecular testing in their country, although in this regard, the United States and Canada had the lowest rates of dissatisfaction.
In fact, 39% of those who request tests and treat patients ranked the conditions of molecular testing in their country as “average or below,” while 42% of respondents in the tissue acquisition track ranked the conditions of molecular testing as average or below, the worst rankings coming from Latin America and the ROW.
Low quality of tissue samples was another reason respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of molecular testing in their country.
Smeltzer is a research consultant for the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moreover, the majority of these clinicians believe that fewer than 50% of patients in their country undergo molecular testing, the same survey showed.
The survey was conducted by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC); 2537 questionnaires from 102 countries were returned and analyzed.
It was published online May 20 in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
The results are concerning because “the risk of death for patients with NSCLC is substantially reduced when a gene alteration is identified and the available targeted therapy is administered,” the authors emphasize.
“Specific protocols to initiate reflex testing for guideline-recommended molecular markers would help providers consider molecular testing earlier and optimize tissue,” they suggest.
Surprised that clinicians were unaware of guidelines
“I was not surprised that we found suboptimal testing rates based on other research that has demonstrated the need to improve the quality of lung cancer in some areas,” corresponding author Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, University of Memphis, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News in an email.
“However, I was surprised that so many respondents were unaware of guidelines,” he said.
The College of American Pathologists, IASLC, and Association for Molecular Pathology established evidence-based standards for the selection of NSCLC patients for molecular testing in 2013, and these guidelines were subsequently endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“We suspect that the level of access a provider has to targeted therapies does affect molecular testing rates,” Smeltzer acknowledged.
Molecular testing survey
“The survey included a seven-question introduction for all respondents and then divided respondents into one of three tracks,” the authors explain.
These tracks included respondents who requested tests and who treated patients (medical oncologists), those who analyzed and interpreted assays (pathologists), and those who acquired tissue samples (surgeons, pulmonologists, radiologists).
Countries were also grouped into five geographic regions — Asia, Europe, Latin America, United States, and Canada — and the rest of the world (ROW).
“Overall, respondents reported that molecular testing rates were lower than we would like but they were not satisfied with the current state of testing, and they reported higher testing rates in their own clinics,” Smeltzer noted.
However, when tests were ordered, “we found 99% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered tests for EGFR, 95% for ALK, 79% for ROS1, and < 50% ordered other tests,” the authors observe.
Indeed, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 were the top three tests ordered across all regions, though less frequently so in the ROW, they add.
More than half of requesting/treating track respondents also order multiplex assays, although Latin America and the ROW did this less frequently than other regions.
Over 90% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated that they perform EGFR testing, while 83% of the same group do ALK testing; 69% tested for KRAS; 68% for BRAF, 64% for ROS1, and 56% for HER2. Fewer than half of them performed other tests.
Survey results also showed that EGFR, ALK, and KRAS are the top three tests performed across all regions, with no regional differences.
“Respondents also reported on the acquisition and testing of liquid biopsies,” survey authors point out.
Here, 87% of requesting/treating track respondents indicated that they “sometimes” request molecular testing on liquid biopsies, but the proportions of those who sometimes use liquid biopsy varied by region and were lowest in Latin America and the ROW.
A lower proportion of those who perform and interpret assays, at 69%, also offer tests on liquid biopsies, but this percentage, too, varied significantly by region, being the least frequently done in the United States and Canada, as well as in the ROW.
All the above tests are for genetic mutations or alterations that guide clinicians on use of targeted therapy directed at particular mutations, for example, drugs like erlotinib for EGFR and crizotinib for ALK.
However, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has also made a big impact on the treatment of NSCLC, and the use of these agents is sometimes guided by testing for programmed cell-death ligand (PD-L1).
PD-L1 is not a molecular marker per se, the authors note.
Nevertheless, “we found that 84% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered PD-L1 and 68% of respondents who perform or interpret assays report PD-L1 is offered in their own lab,” the authors observe.
Smeltzer commented that both approaches — targeted therapies and immunotherapy — have made inroads into the treatment of NSCLC, in some cases replacing chemotherapy.
He emphasized that “it is important to know if a specific oncogene driver is present before initiating immunotherapy treatment,” and noted that when tissue is sent out for both types of testing, the results for PD-L1 are usually available before the results for the full molecular testing panel are back.
Barriers to testing
“The most frequent barrier to molecular testing in every region was cost,” the survey authors note.
Insufficient amount of tumor cells was the main reason for molecular testing failures along with inadequate tissue quality.
The majority of respondents who order tests and treat patients were sure that the laboratories they use perform appropriate validation of molecular tests, while almost all of those who perform or interpret assays said they perform validation tests in their labs.
Only 30% of respondents who request tests and treat patients have access to molecular testing labs within their own institutions; the remaining respondents have to outsource testing completely or partially.
Most respondents who test and treat patients also have multidisciplinary tumor boards to discuss patients with NSCLC, but almost one quarter of the same group indicated their board met less than once a month.
“Turnaround time is a barrier to molecular testing across the world,” the authors continue, with 29% of those who request tests and treat patients reporting that it typically takes 10 days or more to receive molecular testing results.
Interestingly, the highest percentage of respondents who reported this long turnaround time were in North America.
Perhaps encouragingly, 41% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated they were dissatisfied with the condition of molecular testing in their country, although in this regard, the United States and Canada had the lowest rates of dissatisfaction.
In fact, 39% of those who request tests and treat patients ranked the conditions of molecular testing in their country as “average or below,” while 42% of respondents in the tissue acquisition track ranked the conditions of molecular testing as average or below, the worst rankings coming from Latin America and the ROW.
Low quality of tissue samples was another reason respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of molecular testing in their country.
Smeltzer is a research consultant for the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moreover, the majority of these clinicians believe that fewer than 50% of patients in their country undergo molecular testing, the same survey showed.
The survey was conducted by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC); 2537 questionnaires from 102 countries were returned and analyzed.
It was published online May 20 in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
The results are concerning because “the risk of death for patients with NSCLC is substantially reduced when a gene alteration is identified and the available targeted therapy is administered,” the authors emphasize.
“Specific protocols to initiate reflex testing for guideline-recommended molecular markers would help providers consider molecular testing earlier and optimize tissue,” they suggest.
Surprised that clinicians were unaware of guidelines
“I was not surprised that we found suboptimal testing rates based on other research that has demonstrated the need to improve the quality of lung cancer in some areas,” corresponding author Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, University of Memphis, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News in an email.
“However, I was surprised that so many respondents were unaware of guidelines,” he said.
The College of American Pathologists, IASLC, and Association for Molecular Pathology established evidence-based standards for the selection of NSCLC patients for molecular testing in 2013, and these guidelines were subsequently endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“We suspect that the level of access a provider has to targeted therapies does affect molecular testing rates,” Smeltzer acknowledged.
Molecular testing survey
“The survey included a seven-question introduction for all respondents and then divided respondents into one of three tracks,” the authors explain.
These tracks included respondents who requested tests and who treated patients (medical oncologists), those who analyzed and interpreted assays (pathologists), and those who acquired tissue samples (surgeons, pulmonologists, radiologists).
Countries were also grouped into five geographic regions — Asia, Europe, Latin America, United States, and Canada — and the rest of the world (ROW).
“Overall, respondents reported that molecular testing rates were lower than we would like but they were not satisfied with the current state of testing, and they reported higher testing rates in their own clinics,” Smeltzer noted.
However, when tests were ordered, “we found 99% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered tests for EGFR, 95% for ALK, 79% for ROS1, and < 50% ordered other tests,” the authors observe.
Indeed, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 were the top three tests ordered across all regions, though less frequently so in the ROW, they add.
More than half of requesting/treating track respondents also order multiplex assays, although Latin America and the ROW did this less frequently than other regions.
Over 90% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated that they perform EGFR testing, while 83% of the same group do ALK testing; 69% tested for KRAS; 68% for BRAF, 64% for ROS1, and 56% for HER2. Fewer than half of them performed other tests.
Survey results also showed that EGFR, ALK, and KRAS are the top three tests performed across all regions, with no regional differences.
“Respondents also reported on the acquisition and testing of liquid biopsies,” survey authors point out.
Here, 87% of requesting/treating track respondents indicated that they “sometimes” request molecular testing on liquid biopsies, but the proportions of those who sometimes use liquid biopsy varied by region and were lowest in Latin America and the ROW.
A lower proportion of those who perform and interpret assays, at 69%, also offer tests on liquid biopsies, but this percentage, too, varied significantly by region, being the least frequently done in the United States and Canada, as well as in the ROW.
All the above tests are for genetic mutations or alterations that guide clinicians on use of targeted therapy directed at particular mutations, for example, drugs like erlotinib for EGFR and crizotinib for ALK.
However, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has also made a big impact on the treatment of NSCLC, and the use of these agents is sometimes guided by testing for programmed cell-death ligand (PD-L1).
PD-L1 is not a molecular marker per se, the authors note.
Nevertheless, “we found that 84% of respondents in the requesting/treating track ordered PD-L1 and 68% of respondents who perform or interpret assays report PD-L1 is offered in their own lab,” the authors observe.
Smeltzer commented that both approaches — targeted therapies and immunotherapy — have made inroads into the treatment of NSCLC, in some cases replacing chemotherapy.
He emphasized that “it is important to know if a specific oncogene driver is present before initiating immunotherapy treatment,” and noted that when tissue is sent out for both types of testing, the results for PD-L1 are usually available before the results for the full molecular testing panel are back.
Barriers to testing
“The most frequent barrier to molecular testing in every region was cost,” the survey authors note.
Insufficient amount of tumor cells was the main reason for molecular testing failures along with inadequate tissue quality.
The majority of respondents who order tests and treat patients were sure that the laboratories they use perform appropriate validation of molecular tests, while almost all of those who perform or interpret assays said they perform validation tests in their labs.
Only 30% of respondents who request tests and treat patients have access to molecular testing labs within their own institutions; the remaining respondents have to outsource testing completely or partially.
Most respondents who test and treat patients also have multidisciplinary tumor boards to discuss patients with NSCLC, but almost one quarter of the same group indicated their board met less than once a month.
“Turnaround time is a barrier to molecular testing across the world,” the authors continue, with 29% of those who request tests and treat patients reporting that it typically takes 10 days or more to receive molecular testing results.
Interestingly, the highest percentage of respondents who reported this long turnaround time were in North America.
Perhaps encouragingly, 41% of respondents who perform or interpret assays indicated they were dissatisfied with the condition of molecular testing in their country, although in this regard, the United States and Canada had the lowest rates of dissatisfaction.
In fact, 39% of those who request tests and treat patients ranked the conditions of molecular testing in their country as “average or below,” while 42% of respondents in the tissue acquisition track ranked the conditions of molecular testing as average or below, the worst rankings coming from Latin America and the ROW.
Low quality of tissue samples was another reason respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of molecular testing in their country.
Smeltzer is a research consultant for the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.