MDedge ObGyn

The theme of the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons was Impact Factor—an allusion to scientific journal impact factor, as well as how we as gynecologic surgeons have a societal impact through our innovation, education, equity, and enterprise-level efforts. This theme and the diverse roster of speakers and presentations on contemporary and controversial issues impacting today’s gynecologic surgeons clearly resonated, breaking the prior registration record with more than 200 additional attendees than the previous year.

As always, the preconference postgraduate courses delivered relevant content that spanned the educational and surgical spectrum, including: “Innovations in training gynecologic surgeons”; “Urologic surgery for the gynecologic surgeon”; the social media workshop “Gynfluencing: Using social media to find your digital voice”; and “The sim factor: Making an impact in surgical education.” This also marked the first year of offering a specific SGS Fellows/Young Attendings’ course. The featured speaker of the SGS Equity Council was Patty Brisben, philanthropist, CEO, and founder of Pure Romance.

Dr. Beri Ridgeway, Cleveland Clinic Chief of Staff, delivered the Mark D. Walters Lecture, “Surgeon in the C-suite,” on leading approximately 5,000 physicians and the importance of surgeons and specifically ObGyns having a seat at the table. The TeLinde lecturer, Dr. Pam Moalli, Professor and Division Director for Urogynecology at the University of Pittsburgh Magee Womens Hospital, spoke on “Biomaterials for gynecologic surgeons: Toward bioinspired biomimetic devices.” The panel on the “Ergonomics of gynecologic surgery” was moderated by Dr. Amanda Fader and Dr. Kim Kho, who shared their experiences with work-related musculoskeletal injury, and featured esteemed panelists Dr. Noor Abu-Alnadi from UNC, Dr. Sue Hallbeck from Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan from Columbia University.

The conference also featured a new format of Ted Med Talks:

• Dr. Jason Wright, Editor-in-Chief, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director of Gynecologic Oncology at Columbia University, who spoke on “Surgical volume and outcomes for gynecologic surgery: Is more always better?”
• Dr. Kelly Wright, Division Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Cedars Sinai, on “Climate change starts at 7:15”
• Dr. Ebony Carter, Associate Editor, Equity, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Washington University, on “Centering equity in reproductive health research.”

In this special section, several of these talks are presented. Additionally, Dr. Laura Homewood and her coauthors will discuss gender and racial biases in a large multi-institutional sample of more than 15,000 Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, SGS former president, and I hope that you will consider attending #SGS2024 in Orlando, Florida, led by Dr. Suzie As-Sanie, program chair, and Dr. Rosanne Kho, current SGS president, which promises to be another exciting meeting. ●

The theme of the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons was Impact Factor—an allusion to scientific journal impact factor, as well as how we as gynecologic surgeons have a societal impact through our innovation, education, equity, and enterprise-level efforts. This theme and the diverse roster of speakers and presentations on contemporary and controversial issues impacting today’s gynecologic surgeons clearly resonated, breaking the prior registration record with more than 200 additional attendees than the previous year.

As always, the preconference postgraduate courses delivered relevant content that spanned the educational and surgical spectrum, including: “Innovations in training gynecologic surgeons”; “Urologic surgery for the gynecologic surgeon”; the social media workshop “Gynfluencing: Using social media to find your digital voice”; and “The sim factor: Making an impact in surgical education.” This also marked the first year of offering a specific SGS Fellows/Young Attendings’ course. The featured speaker of the SGS Equity Council was Patty Brisben, philanthropist, CEO, and founder of Pure Romance.

Dr. Beri Ridgeway, Cleveland Clinic Chief of Staff, delivered the Mark D. Walters Lecture, “Surgeon in the C-suite,” on leading approximately 5,000 physicians and the importance of surgeons and specifically ObGyns having a seat at the table. The TeLinde lecturer, Dr. Pam Moalli, Professor and Division Director for Urogynecology at the University of Pittsburgh Magee Womens Hospital, spoke on “Biomaterials for gynecologic surgeons: Toward bioinspired biomimetic devices.” The panel on the “Ergonomics of gynecologic surgery” was moderated by Dr. Amanda Fader and Dr. Kim Kho, who shared their experiences with work-related musculoskeletal injury, and featured esteemed panelists Dr. Noor Abu-Alnadi from UNC, Dr. Sue Hallbeck from Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan from Columbia University.

The conference also featured a new format of Ted Med Talks:

• Dr. Jason Wright, Editor-in-Chief, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director of Gynecologic Oncology at Columbia University, who spoke on “Surgical volume and outcomes for gynecologic surgery: Is more always better?”
• Dr. Kelly Wright, Division Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Cedars Sinai, on “Climate change starts at 7:15”
• Dr. Ebony Carter, Associate Editor, Equity, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Washington University, on “Centering equity in reproductive health research.”

In this special section, several of these talks are presented. Additionally, Dr. Laura Homewood and her coauthors will discuss gender and racial biases in a large multi-institutional sample of more than 15,000 Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, SGS former president, and I hope that you will consider attending #SGS2024 in Orlando, Florida, led by Dr. Suzie As-Sanie, program chair, and Dr. Rosanne Kho, current SGS president, which promises to be another exciting meeting. ●

The theme of the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons was Impact Factor—an allusion to scientific journal impact factor, as well as how we as gynecologic surgeons have a societal impact through our innovation, education, equity, and enterprise-level efforts. This theme and the diverse roster of speakers and presentations on contemporary and controversial issues impacting today’s gynecologic surgeons clearly resonated, breaking the prior registration record with more than 200 additional attendees than the previous year.

As always, the preconference postgraduate courses delivered relevant content that spanned the educational and surgical spectrum, including: “Innovations in training gynecologic surgeons”; “Urologic surgery for the gynecologic surgeon”; the social media workshop “Gynfluencing: Using social media to find your digital voice”; and “The sim factor: Making an impact in surgical education.” This also marked the first year of offering a specific SGS Fellows/Young Attendings’ course. The featured speaker of the SGS Equity Council was Patty Brisben, philanthropist, CEO, and founder of Pure Romance.

Dr. Beri Ridgeway, Cleveland Clinic Chief of Staff, delivered the Mark D. Walters Lecture, “Surgeon in the C-suite,” on leading approximately 5,000 physicians and the importance of surgeons and specifically ObGyns having a seat at the table. The TeLinde lecturer, Dr. Pam Moalli, Professor and Division Director for Urogynecology at the University of Pittsburgh Magee Womens Hospital, spoke on “Biomaterials for gynecologic surgeons: Toward bioinspired biomimetic devices.” The panel on the “Ergonomics of gynecologic surgery” was moderated by Dr. Amanda Fader and Dr. Kim Kho, who shared their experiences with work-related musculoskeletal injury, and featured esteemed panelists Dr. Noor Abu-Alnadi from UNC, Dr. Sue Hallbeck from Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan from Columbia University.

The conference also featured a new format of Ted Med Talks:

• Dr. Jason Wright, Editor-in-Chief, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director of Gynecologic Oncology at Columbia University, who spoke on “Surgical volume and outcomes for gynecologic surgery: Is more always better?”
• Dr. Kelly Wright, Division Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Cedars Sinai, on “Climate change starts at 7:15”
• Dr. Ebony Carter, Associate Editor, Equity, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Division Director, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Washington University, on “Centering equity in reproductive health research.”

In this special section, several of these talks are presented. Additionally, Dr. Laura Homewood and her coauthors will discuss gender and racial biases in a large multi-institutional sample of more than 15,000 Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, SGS former president, and I hope that you will consider attending #SGS2024 in Orlando, Florida, led by Dr. Suzie As-Sanie, program chair, and Dr. Rosanne Kho, current SGS president, which promises to be another exciting meeting. ●

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

In 2022, the most significant advances in the treatment of gynecologic cancers were achieved for patients with ovarian cancer. While ovarian cancer continues to carry the worst prognosis of all gynecologic cancers, 5-year relative survival has gradually increased, from 34.4% in 1975 to 52.4% in 2014.¹

In this Update, we highlight the recent advances in our understanding of targeted therapy in ovarian cancer. We review SORAYA, a trial that demonstrated that mirvetuximab soravtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate, has promising efficacy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancers that overexpress folate receptor α. We also spotlight progress in the treatment of low-grade serous ovarian cancer, another notoriously chemotherapy-resistant disease, in GOG 281/LOGS, a phase 2 study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib. Finally, we discuss emerging long-term follow-up data on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which are helping to refine the role of these groundbreaking drugs.

New drug approved for platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer—the first since 2014

Matulonis UA, Lorusso D, Oaknin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate receptor alpha expression: results from the SORAYA study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2436-2445. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01900.

While most patients diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer will respond to platinum-based chemotherapy, those whose disease recurs eventually develop resistance to platinum agents. Treatment options for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are limited and prognosis is poor. Most regimens have a response rate of only 10%. Since the approval of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in 2014, no new agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Efficacy shown with mirvetuximab

Recently, Matulonis and colleagues published results of the SORAYA study, a single-arm,phase 2 trial, that examined the efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx among women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.² Mirvetuximab is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody directed at the folate receptor α attached to a cytotoxic microtubule inhibitor.

The study included 106 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer whose tumors expressed folate receptor α at a high level—a feature of approximately 50% of patients screened for the study. Twenty-nine patients experienced a partial response and 5 had a complete response, corresponding to a remarkable objective response rate of 32.4%. The median progression-free survival was 4.3 months.

Like other antibody-drug conjugates, ocular toxicities, including blurred vision (41%) and keratopathy (29%), were common. However, toxicity was manageable and rarely led to drug discontinuation.

Continue to: A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma...

A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

Gershenson DM, Miller A, Brady WE, et al. Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:541-553. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02175-9.

Low-grade serous carcinoma is a histologic subtype that makes up approximately 5% of all epithelial ovarian cancers.³ Patients with low-grade serous carcinoma are often younger and, because of the indolent nature of the histology, generally have a longer overall survival compared with patients with high-grade serous carcinoma. Unlike high-grade disease, however, low-grade serous carcinoma usually is resistant to chemotherapy, making treatment options limited for patients with advanced and recurrent disease.

Trametinib: A potential option

In an international, randomized, open-label trial (GOG 281/LOGS), Gershenson and colleagues investigated the efficacy of trametinib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer.⁴ Trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK inhibitor, is a targeted agent that is FDA approved for treatment in BRAF-mutated melanoma, lung, and thyroid cancers.

Patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to trametinib (n = 130) or 1 of 5 standard-of-care treatment options (n = 130), including both chemotherapy and hormonal treatments. Those assigned to trametinib were significantly less likely to have disease progression (78% vs 89%), with a median progression-free survival of 13 months, compared with7.2 months in controls (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.64). Additionally, patients who had a radiographic response to trametinib experienced a longer duration of response compared with those who responded to standard-of-care treatment (13.6 months vs 5.9 months).

While there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51–1.12), crossover to trametinib from the standard-of-care group was allowed and occurred among 68% of patients, which limits the study’s ability to measure differences in overall survival.

Trametinib was well tolerated by patients, but skin rash and anemia followed by hypertension were the most common adverse effects. In the standard-of-care group, the most common toxicities were abdominal pain, nausea, and anemia. A slightly higher proportion of patients in the trametinib group discontinued the drug due to toxicity compared with the standard-of-care group (36% vs 30%), but the there was no difference between the 2 groups in scores on quality-of-life assessments.

Continue to: PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others...

PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others

Monk BJ, Parkinson C, Lim MC, et al. A randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3952-3964. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01003.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a class of oral anticancer agents that target DNA repair. Since the initial FDA approval in 2014 of olaparib for the treatment of patients with recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, PARP inhibitors have been approved for maintenance in both the frontline setting and after platinum-sensitive recurrence, and as single-agenttreatment for ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations or evidence of homologous repair deficiency (HRD), a BRCA-like molecular phenotype.⁵ The expanding role for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer seemed inexorable.

Restricted prescribing advised

In 2022, we learned that in certain settings, PARP inhibitors may be the wrong choice. Several “Dear Health Care Provider” letters were issued by AstraZeneca, Clovis, and GSK to advise physicians to restrict the prescribing of olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib.^6,7

AstraZeneca and Clovis issued letters spurred by the final analysis of ARIEL4 and SOLO3 studies, 2 randomized trials that investigated, respectively, rucaparib and olaparib monotherapy compared with chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.^8,9 In both cases patients randomized to PARP inhibitors may have experienced an overall survival decrement compared with those who received chemotherapy.

At the FDA’s request, Clovis has withdrawn rucaparib as a treatment for patients with recurrent BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer who had received 2 or more lines of chemotherapy, and AstraZeneca withdrew olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA-mutant patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Shortly after these withdrawals, GSK also withdrew its indication for niraparib as a treatment for women with HRD, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who have received 3 or more prior chemotherapies. Furthermore, based on the final overall survival analysis of the NOVA study, GSK also restricted its indication for niraparib maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer to patients with germline BRCA mutations, due to evidence of an overall survival detriment in this setting.¹⁰

Positive study results

Fortunately, 2022 was not all bad news for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. In June 2022, the ATHENA-MONO trial, a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trial, demonstrated that rucaparib maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with a significantly longer progression-free survival compared with placebo.¹¹ The effect was most pronounced in the BRCA-mutant/HRD population, with a median progression-free survival of 28.7 months in the rucaparib group compared with 11.3 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.72). Thus, rucaparib was added to the list of PARP inhibitors approved for upfront maintenance therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Similarly, the long-term overall survival analysis from the upfront trials SOLO-1 and PAOLA-1 showed an overall survival advantage of PARP inhibitor, compared with placebo, maintenance in patients with BRCA mutations or HRD tumors.^12,13 ●

In 2022, the most significant advances in the treatment of gynecologic cancers were achieved for patients with ovarian cancer. While ovarian cancer continues to carry the worst prognosis of all gynecologic cancers, 5-year relative survival has gradually increased, from 34.4% in 1975 to 52.4% in 2014.¹

In this Update, we highlight the recent advances in our understanding of targeted therapy in ovarian cancer. We review SORAYA, a trial that demonstrated that mirvetuximab soravtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate, has promising efficacy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancers that overexpress folate receptor α. We also spotlight progress in the treatment of low-grade serous ovarian cancer, another notoriously chemotherapy-resistant disease, in GOG 281/LOGS, a phase 2 study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib. Finally, we discuss emerging long-term follow-up data on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which are helping to refine the role of these groundbreaking drugs.

New drug approved for platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer—the first since 2014

Matulonis UA, Lorusso D, Oaknin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate receptor alpha expression: results from the SORAYA study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2436-2445. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01900.

While most patients diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer will respond to platinum-based chemotherapy, those whose disease recurs eventually develop resistance to platinum agents. Treatment options for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are limited and prognosis is poor. Most regimens have a response rate of only 10%. Since the approval of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in 2014, no new agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Efficacy shown with mirvetuximab

Recently, Matulonis and colleagues published results of the SORAYA study, a single-arm,phase 2 trial, that examined the efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx among women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.² Mirvetuximab is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody directed at the folate receptor α attached to a cytotoxic microtubule inhibitor.

The study included 106 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer whose tumors expressed folate receptor α at a high level—a feature of approximately 50% of patients screened for the study. Twenty-nine patients experienced a partial response and 5 had a complete response, corresponding to a remarkable objective response rate of 32.4%. The median progression-free survival was 4.3 months.

Like other antibody-drug conjugates, ocular toxicities, including blurred vision (41%) and keratopathy (29%), were common. However, toxicity was manageable and rarely led to drug discontinuation.

Continue to: A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma...

A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

Gershenson DM, Miller A, Brady WE, et al. Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:541-553. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02175-9.

Low-grade serous carcinoma is a histologic subtype that makes up approximately 5% of all epithelial ovarian cancers.³ Patients with low-grade serous carcinoma are often younger and, because of the indolent nature of the histology, generally have a longer overall survival compared with patients with high-grade serous carcinoma. Unlike high-grade disease, however, low-grade serous carcinoma usually is resistant to chemotherapy, making treatment options limited for patients with advanced and recurrent disease.

Trametinib: A potential option

In an international, randomized, open-label trial (GOG 281/LOGS), Gershenson and colleagues investigated the efficacy of trametinib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer.⁴ Trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK inhibitor, is a targeted agent that is FDA approved for treatment in BRAF-mutated melanoma, lung, and thyroid cancers.

Patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to trametinib (n = 130) or 1 of 5 standard-of-care treatment options (n = 130), including both chemotherapy and hormonal treatments. Those assigned to trametinib were significantly less likely to have disease progression (78% vs 89%), with a median progression-free survival of 13 months, compared with7.2 months in controls (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.64). Additionally, patients who had a radiographic response to trametinib experienced a longer duration of response compared with those who responded to standard-of-care treatment (13.6 months vs 5.9 months).

While there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51–1.12), crossover to trametinib from the standard-of-care group was allowed and occurred among 68% of patients, which limits the study’s ability to measure differences in overall survival.

Trametinib was well tolerated by patients, but skin rash and anemia followed by hypertension were the most common adverse effects. In the standard-of-care group, the most common toxicities were abdominal pain, nausea, and anemia. A slightly higher proportion of patients in the trametinib group discontinued the drug due to toxicity compared with the standard-of-care group (36% vs 30%), but the there was no difference between the 2 groups in scores on quality-of-life assessments.

Continue to: PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others...

PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others

Monk BJ, Parkinson C, Lim MC, et al. A randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3952-3964. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01003.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a class of oral anticancer agents that target DNA repair. Since the initial FDA approval in 2014 of olaparib for the treatment of patients with recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, PARP inhibitors have been approved for maintenance in both the frontline setting and after platinum-sensitive recurrence, and as single-agenttreatment for ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations or evidence of homologous repair deficiency (HRD), a BRCA-like molecular phenotype.⁵ The expanding role for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer seemed inexorable.

Restricted prescribing advised

In 2022, we learned that in certain settings, PARP inhibitors may be the wrong choice. Several “Dear Health Care Provider” letters were issued by AstraZeneca, Clovis, and GSK to advise physicians to restrict the prescribing of olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib.^6,7

AstraZeneca and Clovis issued letters spurred by the final analysis of ARIEL4 and SOLO3 studies, 2 randomized trials that investigated, respectively, rucaparib and olaparib monotherapy compared with chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.^8,9 In both cases patients randomized to PARP inhibitors may have experienced an overall survival decrement compared with those who received chemotherapy.

At the FDA’s request, Clovis has withdrawn rucaparib as a treatment for patients with recurrent BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer who had received 2 or more lines of chemotherapy, and AstraZeneca withdrew olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA-mutant patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Shortly after these withdrawals, GSK also withdrew its indication for niraparib as a treatment for women with HRD, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who have received 3 or more prior chemotherapies. Furthermore, based on the final overall survival analysis of the NOVA study, GSK also restricted its indication for niraparib maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer to patients with germline BRCA mutations, due to evidence of an overall survival detriment in this setting.¹⁰

Positive study results

Fortunately, 2022 was not all bad news for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. In June 2022, the ATHENA-MONO trial, a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trial, demonstrated that rucaparib maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with a significantly longer progression-free survival compared with placebo.¹¹ The effect was most pronounced in the BRCA-mutant/HRD population, with a median progression-free survival of 28.7 months in the rucaparib group compared with 11.3 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.72). Thus, rucaparib was added to the list of PARP inhibitors approved for upfront maintenance therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Similarly, the long-term overall survival analysis from the upfront trials SOLO-1 and PAOLA-1 showed an overall survival advantage of PARP inhibitor, compared with placebo, maintenance in patients with BRCA mutations or HRD tumors.^12,13 ●

In 2022, the most significant advances in the treatment of gynecologic cancers were achieved for patients with ovarian cancer. While ovarian cancer continues to carry the worst prognosis of all gynecologic cancers, 5-year relative survival has gradually increased, from 34.4% in 1975 to 52.4% in 2014.¹

In this Update, we highlight the recent advances in our understanding of targeted therapy in ovarian cancer. We review SORAYA, a trial that demonstrated that mirvetuximab soravtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate, has promising efficacy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancers that overexpress folate receptor α. We also spotlight progress in the treatment of low-grade serous ovarian cancer, another notoriously chemotherapy-resistant disease, in GOG 281/LOGS, a phase 2 study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib. Finally, we discuss emerging long-term follow-up data on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which are helping to refine the role of these groundbreaking drugs.

New drug approved for platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer—the first since 2014

Matulonis UA, Lorusso D, Oaknin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate receptor alpha expression: results from the SORAYA study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2436-2445. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01900.

While most patients diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer will respond to platinum-based chemotherapy, those whose disease recurs eventually develop resistance to platinum agents. Treatment options for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are limited and prognosis is poor. Most regimens have a response rate of only 10%. Since the approval of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in 2014, no new agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Efficacy shown with mirvetuximab

Recently, Matulonis and colleagues published results of the SORAYA study, a single-arm,phase 2 trial, that examined the efficacy and safety of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx among women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.² Mirvetuximab is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody directed at the folate receptor α attached to a cytotoxic microtubule inhibitor.

The study included 106 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer whose tumors expressed folate receptor α at a high level—a feature of approximately 50% of patients screened for the study. Twenty-nine patients experienced a partial response and 5 had a complete response, corresponding to a remarkable objective response rate of 32.4%. The median progression-free survival was 4.3 months.

Like other antibody-drug conjugates, ocular toxicities, including blurred vision (41%) and keratopathy (29%), were common. However, toxicity was manageable and rarely led to drug discontinuation.

Continue to: A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma...

A novel agent for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

Gershenson DM, Miller A, Brady WE, et al. Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:541-553. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02175-9.

Low-grade serous carcinoma is a histologic subtype that makes up approximately 5% of all epithelial ovarian cancers.³ Patients with low-grade serous carcinoma are often younger and, because of the indolent nature of the histology, generally have a longer overall survival compared with patients with high-grade serous carcinoma. Unlike high-grade disease, however, low-grade serous carcinoma usually is resistant to chemotherapy, making treatment options limited for patients with advanced and recurrent disease.

Trametinib: A potential option

In an international, randomized, open-label trial (GOG 281/LOGS), Gershenson and colleagues investigated the efficacy of trametinib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer.⁴ Trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK inhibitor, is a targeted agent that is FDA approved for treatment in BRAF-mutated melanoma, lung, and thyroid cancers.

Patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to trametinib (n = 130) or 1 of 5 standard-of-care treatment options (n = 130), including both chemotherapy and hormonal treatments. Those assigned to trametinib were significantly less likely to have disease progression (78% vs 89%), with a median progression-free survival of 13 months, compared with7.2 months in controls (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.64). Additionally, patients who had a radiographic response to trametinib experienced a longer duration of response compared with those who responded to standard-of-care treatment (13.6 months vs 5.9 months).

While there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51–1.12), crossover to trametinib from the standard-of-care group was allowed and occurred among 68% of patients, which limits the study’s ability to measure differences in overall survival.

Trametinib was well tolerated by patients, but skin rash and anemia followed by hypertension were the most common adverse effects. In the standard-of-care group, the most common toxicities were abdominal pain, nausea, and anemia. A slightly higher proportion of patients in the trametinib group discontinued the drug due to toxicity compared with the standard-of-care group (36% vs 30%), but the there was no difference between the 2 groups in scores on quality-of-life assessments.

Continue to: PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others...

PARP inhibitors benefit many women with ovarian cancer, but they may hurt others

Monk BJ, Parkinson C, Lim MC, et al. A randomized, phase III trial to evaluate rucaparib monotherapy as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ATHENA-MONO/GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3952-3964. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01003.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a class of oral anticancer agents that target DNA repair. Since the initial FDA approval in 2014 of olaparib for the treatment of patients with recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, PARP inhibitors have been approved for maintenance in both the frontline setting and after platinum-sensitive recurrence, and as single-agenttreatment for ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations or evidence of homologous repair deficiency (HRD), a BRCA-like molecular phenotype.⁵ The expanding role for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer seemed inexorable.

Restricted prescribing advised

In 2022, we learned that in certain settings, PARP inhibitors may be the wrong choice. Several “Dear Health Care Provider” letters were issued by AstraZeneca, Clovis, and GSK to advise physicians to restrict the prescribing of olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib.^6,7

AstraZeneca and Clovis issued letters spurred by the final analysis of ARIEL4 and SOLO3 studies, 2 randomized trials that investigated, respectively, rucaparib and olaparib monotherapy compared with chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer.^8,9 In both cases patients randomized to PARP inhibitors may have experienced an overall survival decrement compared with those who received chemotherapy.

At the FDA’s request, Clovis has withdrawn rucaparib as a treatment for patients with recurrent BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer who had received 2 or more lines of chemotherapy, and AstraZeneca withdrew olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA-mutant patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Shortly after these withdrawals, GSK also withdrew its indication for niraparib as a treatment for women with HRD, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who have received 3 or more prior chemotherapies. Furthermore, based on the final overall survival analysis of the NOVA study, GSK also restricted its indication for niraparib maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer to patients with germline BRCA mutations, due to evidence of an overall survival detriment in this setting.¹⁰

Positive study results

Fortunately, 2022 was not all bad news for PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. In June 2022, the ATHENA-MONO trial, a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trial, demonstrated that rucaparib maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with a significantly longer progression-free survival compared with placebo.¹¹ The effect was most pronounced in the BRCA-mutant/HRD population, with a median progression-free survival of 28.7 months in the rucaparib group compared with 11.3 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.72). Thus, rucaparib was added to the list of PARP inhibitors approved for upfront maintenance therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Similarly, the long-term overall survival analysis from the upfront trials SOLO-1 and PAOLA-1 showed an overall survival advantage of PARP inhibitor, compared with placebo, maintenance in patients with BRCA mutations or HRD tumors.^12,13 ●

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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