User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Large study affirms what we already know: Masks work to prevent COVID-19
It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.
The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.
“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.
“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.
It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.
Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.
Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.
“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.
One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.
Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.
Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.
Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.
The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.
The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.
Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
Rigorous research
The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.
Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.
Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.
Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.
They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.
- N for no-cost masks.
- O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
- R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
- M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.
These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.
Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
Saved lives and money
The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.
“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.
Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.
“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.
The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.
The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.
“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.
“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.
It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.
Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.
Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.
“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.
One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.
Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.
Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.
Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.
The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.
The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.
Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
Rigorous research
The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.
Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.
Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.
Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.
They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.
- N for no-cost masks.
- O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
- R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
- M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.
These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.
Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
Saved lives and money
The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.
“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.
Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.
“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.
The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.
The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.
“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.
“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.
It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.
Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.
Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.
“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.
One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.
Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.
Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.
Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.
The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.
The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.
Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
Rigorous research
The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.
Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.
Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.
Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.
They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.
- N for no-cost masks.
- O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
- R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
- M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.
These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.
Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
Saved lives and money
The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.
“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.
Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.
“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.
The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I did peer review: I saw turf wars, ego, and unfairness
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Targeted therapies for vascular anomalies continue to be refined
“The medicines we had were believed to be antiangiogenic and they were used not only for tumors but for all sorts of malformations,” Dr. Adams, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, recalled during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “I didn’t understand how so many different phenotypes could respond to the same medicine. Not all of them did, but some did have some response.”
She also grew frustrated by the lack of clinical trials and collaborative research groups involving patients with vascular anomalies. “I called this the chicken soup of medical management,” she said. “As we got more involved in vascular anomalies, the power of one patient or that power of a few patients led us in a direction for improved medical management. Or knowledge was gained by one patient who failed all noted medical management and led us into a direction repurposing a drug that actually wound up working.”
Propranolol, for example, became a key medicine for the treatment of vascular anomalies when it was found to improve hemangiomas in children who were given the drug for other reasons. “From this observation a key prospective study was performed and this beta-blocker became FDA approved for the treatment of complicated hemangiomas,” said Dr. Adams, who directs the hospital’s Comprehensive Vascular Anomalies Program. “That was how a bedside observation let to bench intervention, and how presently we are investigating bench interventions related to the mechanism of propranolol therapy.”
Then there is the story of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus. In her previous role as medical director of the Hemangioma and Vascular Malformation Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Dr. Adams and colleagues cared for an infant who presented with a Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE). “At that time, she was given our standard of practice for the treatment, but our standard of practice was not good enough,” she said.
While other options were being discussed for this patient, “we had been doing some collaborative work with pathology and nephrology on the PIKC3A pathway, because we knew that germline mutations of TEK were involved in this pathway, and we knew that 50% of patients with PTEN mutations had vascular anomalies. So, we hypothesized that this pathway was involved in vascular anomalies.”
They also had earlier success using mTOR inhibition for tuberous sclerosis patients with angiomyolipomas and patients with neurofibromatosis. “We needed a medicine that could be given orally because we did not think this patient was going to do well, so we started her on sirolimus,” Dr. Adams said. “She had a great response. This was followed by a phase 2 study, which proved efficacy and led to discovery of biomarkers.” This is where the angiopoietin-2 story started, she said, noting that this biomarker is now used “to differentiate KLA [Kaposiform lymphangiomatosis] from KHE and KLAs and KHE from other disorders.”
This bedside work helped researchers to better understand the mechanism of action in other disorders, such as observing somatic mutations in PIK3CA in patients with CLOVES syndrome. “This meant that we could now correlate the phenotype to the genotype, and it opened up targeted therapy with developmental therapeutics that were already in use for oncology,” Dr. Adams said. “We know we had mTOR inhibition with sirolimus and everolimus. We now have an AKT inhibitor, a PIK3CA inhibitor, and we now have another side of the pathway which deals with RASopathies, and some other medicines that we can use.”
Miransertib, a potent PAN-AKT inhibitor initially used for breast cancer, is currently being evaluated in open-label, phase 1 and 2 trials in patients with PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) and Proteus syndrome. The dose used in a pilot study is about one-sixth of the dose used for oncology patients, Dr. Adams said.
She and her colleagues used miransertib to treat a 3-year-old with CLOVES syndrome who had lipomatous infiltration of the abdomen and retroperitoneum with failure to thrive. “He was not eating and was G-tube dependent,” she recalled. “After a month of therapy, he started eating and had improvement in his quality of life,” although despite this improvement volumetric MRI remained unchanged.
Advances in bench to bedside approaches are also under way. Hakon Hakonarson, MD, PhD, the founding director of the Center for Applied Genomics at CHOP, has discovered several genes with in vitro testing and zebra fish modeling, which has been followed by testing medicines on patients.
One such patient, according to Dr. Adams, had a severe central conducting lymphatic anomaly, with a pericardial effusion and significant dysfunction of the central conducting system. The patient was found to have an ARAF mutation, which induces ERK activation. “ERK is downstream of MEK, so the question was whether a MEK inhibitor, trametinib, could be used to treat this patient,” she said. “Trametinib was first used in tissue culture, then used in a zebra fish model and it showed some positive results. Then it was taken to the patient, who had improvement of pulmonary function, remodeling of the lymphatic system, and decrease in the size of his legs.”
Other antiangiogenic agents being used for the treatment of vascular anomalies include bevacizumab, which is being used in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and thalidomide for HHT and arteriovenous malformations. For more information, Dr. Adams recommended a comprehensive review of vascular anomalies, related genes, and treatments that was published in Circulation Research.
The goal of future drug therapies is to support normal growth, “so we don’t need a maximum tolerated dose,” Dr. Adams said. “We need to be very careful of short-term and long-term side effects.”
Going forward, she said that she would like to see more natural history studies of vascular anomalies, improved outcome measures for clinical trials, adaptive study design, preclinical testing, animal model studies, universal availability of genomic testing, improvement of NIH funding, research collaboration nationally and internationally, and industry support.
Dr. Adams disclosed that she is a consultant to Venthera and Novartis.
“The medicines we had were believed to be antiangiogenic and they were used not only for tumors but for all sorts of malformations,” Dr. Adams, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, recalled during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “I didn’t understand how so many different phenotypes could respond to the same medicine. Not all of them did, but some did have some response.”
She also grew frustrated by the lack of clinical trials and collaborative research groups involving patients with vascular anomalies. “I called this the chicken soup of medical management,” she said. “As we got more involved in vascular anomalies, the power of one patient or that power of a few patients led us in a direction for improved medical management. Or knowledge was gained by one patient who failed all noted medical management and led us into a direction repurposing a drug that actually wound up working.”
Propranolol, for example, became a key medicine for the treatment of vascular anomalies when it was found to improve hemangiomas in children who were given the drug for other reasons. “From this observation a key prospective study was performed and this beta-blocker became FDA approved for the treatment of complicated hemangiomas,” said Dr. Adams, who directs the hospital’s Comprehensive Vascular Anomalies Program. “That was how a bedside observation let to bench intervention, and how presently we are investigating bench interventions related to the mechanism of propranolol therapy.”
Then there is the story of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus. In her previous role as medical director of the Hemangioma and Vascular Malformation Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Dr. Adams and colleagues cared for an infant who presented with a Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE). “At that time, she was given our standard of practice for the treatment, but our standard of practice was not good enough,” she said.
While other options were being discussed for this patient, “we had been doing some collaborative work with pathology and nephrology on the PIKC3A pathway, because we knew that germline mutations of TEK were involved in this pathway, and we knew that 50% of patients with PTEN mutations had vascular anomalies. So, we hypothesized that this pathway was involved in vascular anomalies.”
They also had earlier success using mTOR inhibition for tuberous sclerosis patients with angiomyolipomas and patients with neurofibromatosis. “We needed a medicine that could be given orally because we did not think this patient was going to do well, so we started her on sirolimus,” Dr. Adams said. “She had a great response. This was followed by a phase 2 study, which proved efficacy and led to discovery of biomarkers.” This is where the angiopoietin-2 story started, she said, noting that this biomarker is now used “to differentiate KLA [Kaposiform lymphangiomatosis] from KHE and KLAs and KHE from other disorders.”
This bedside work helped researchers to better understand the mechanism of action in other disorders, such as observing somatic mutations in PIK3CA in patients with CLOVES syndrome. “This meant that we could now correlate the phenotype to the genotype, and it opened up targeted therapy with developmental therapeutics that were already in use for oncology,” Dr. Adams said. “We know we had mTOR inhibition with sirolimus and everolimus. We now have an AKT inhibitor, a PIK3CA inhibitor, and we now have another side of the pathway which deals with RASopathies, and some other medicines that we can use.”
Miransertib, a potent PAN-AKT inhibitor initially used for breast cancer, is currently being evaluated in open-label, phase 1 and 2 trials in patients with PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) and Proteus syndrome. The dose used in a pilot study is about one-sixth of the dose used for oncology patients, Dr. Adams said.
She and her colleagues used miransertib to treat a 3-year-old with CLOVES syndrome who had lipomatous infiltration of the abdomen and retroperitoneum with failure to thrive. “He was not eating and was G-tube dependent,” she recalled. “After a month of therapy, he started eating and had improvement in his quality of life,” although despite this improvement volumetric MRI remained unchanged.
Advances in bench to bedside approaches are also under way. Hakon Hakonarson, MD, PhD, the founding director of the Center for Applied Genomics at CHOP, has discovered several genes with in vitro testing and zebra fish modeling, which has been followed by testing medicines on patients.
One such patient, according to Dr. Adams, had a severe central conducting lymphatic anomaly, with a pericardial effusion and significant dysfunction of the central conducting system. The patient was found to have an ARAF mutation, which induces ERK activation. “ERK is downstream of MEK, so the question was whether a MEK inhibitor, trametinib, could be used to treat this patient,” she said. “Trametinib was first used in tissue culture, then used in a zebra fish model and it showed some positive results. Then it was taken to the patient, who had improvement of pulmonary function, remodeling of the lymphatic system, and decrease in the size of his legs.”
Other antiangiogenic agents being used for the treatment of vascular anomalies include bevacizumab, which is being used in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and thalidomide for HHT and arteriovenous malformations. For more information, Dr. Adams recommended a comprehensive review of vascular anomalies, related genes, and treatments that was published in Circulation Research.
The goal of future drug therapies is to support normal growth, “so we don’t need a maximum tolerated dose,” Dr. Adams said. “We need to be very careful of short-term and long-term side effects.”
Going forward, she said that she would like to see more natural history studies of vascular anomalies, improved outcome measures for clinical trials, adaptive study design, preclinical testing, animal model studies, universal availability of genomic testing, improvement of NIH funding, research collaboration nationally and internationally, and industry support.
Dr. Adams disclosed that she is a consultant to Venthera and Novartis.
“The medicines we had were believed to be antiangiogenic and they were used not only for tumors but for all sorts of malformations,” Dr. Adams, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, recalled during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “I didn’t understand how so many different phenotypes could respond to the same medicine. Not all of them did, but some did have some response.”
She also grew frustrated by the lack of clinical trials and collaborative research groups involving patients with vascular anomalies. “I called this the chicken soup of medical management,” she said. “As we got more involved in vascular anomalies, the power of one patient or that power of a few patients led us in a direction for improved medical management. Or knowledge was gained by one patient who failed all noted medical management and led us into a direction repurposing a drug that actually wound up working.”
Propranolol, for example, became a key medicine for the treatment of vascular anomalies when it was found to improve hemangiomas in children who were given the drug for other reasons. “From this observation a key prospective study was performed and this beta-blocker became FDA approved for the treatment of complicated hemangiomas,” said Dr. Adams, who directs the hospital’s Comprehensive Vascular Anomalies Program. “That was how a bedside observation let to bench intervention, and how presently we are investigating bench interventions related to the mechanism of propranolol therapy.”
Then there is the story of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus. In her previous role as medical director of the Hemangioma and Vascular Malformation Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Dr. Adams and colleagues cared for an infant who presented with a Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE). “At that time, she was given our standard of practice for the treatment, but our standard of practice was not good enough,” she said.
While other options were being discussed for this patient, “we had been doing some collaborative work with pathology and nephrology on the PIKC3A pathway, because we knew that germline mutations of TEK were involved in this pathway, and we knew that 50% of patients with PTEN mutations had vascular anomalies. So, we hypothesized that this pathway was involved in vascular anomalies.”
They also had earlier success using mTOR inhibition for tuberous sclerosis patients with angiomyolipomas and patients with neurofibromatosis. “We needed a medicine that could be given orally because we did not think this patient was going to do well, so we started her on sirolimus,” Dr. Adams said. “She had a great response. This was followed by a phase 2 study, which proved efficacy and led to discovery of biomarkers.” This is where the angiopoietin-2 story started, she said, noting that this biomarker is now used “to differentiate KLA [Kaposiform lymphangiomatosis] from KHE and KLAs and KHE from other disorders.”
This bedside work helped researchers to better understand the mechanism of action in other disorders, such as observing somatic mutations in PIK3CA in patients with CLOVES syndrome. “This meant that we could now correlate the phenotype to the genotype, and it opened up targeted therapy with developmental therapeutics that were already in use for oncology,” Dr. Adams said. “We know we had mTOR inhibition with sirolimus and everolimus. We now have an AKT inhibitor, a PIK3CA inhibitor, and we now have another side of the pathway which deals with RASopathies, and some other medicines that we can use.”
Miransertib, a potent PAN-AKT inhibitor initially used for breast cancer, is currently being evaluated in open-label, phase 1 and 2 trials in patients with PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) and Proteus syndrome. The dose used in a pilot study is about one-sixth of the dose used for oncology patients, Dr. Adams said.
She and her colleagues used miransertib to treat a 3-year-old with CLOVES syndrome who had lipomatous infiltration of the abdomen and retroperitoneum with failure to thrive. “He was not eating and was G-tube dependent,” she recalled. “After a month of therapy, he started eating and had improvement in his quality of life,” although despite this improvement volumetric MRI remained unchanged.
Advances in bench to bedside approaches are also under way. Hakon Hakonarson, MD, PhD, the founding director of the Center for Applied Genomics at CHOP, has discovered several genes with in vitro testing and zebra fish modeling, which has been followed by testing medicines on patients.
One such patient, according to Dr. Adams, had a severe central conducting lymphatic anomaly, with a pericardial effusion and significant dysfunction of the central conducting system. The patient was found to have an ARAF mutation, which induces ERK activation. “ERK is downstream of MEK, so the question was whether a MEK inhibitor, trametinib, could be used to treat this patient,” she said. “Trametinib was first used in tissue culture, then used in a zebra fish model and it showed some positive results. Then it was taken to the patient, who had improvement of pulmonary function, remodeling of the lymphatic system, and decrease in the size of his legs.”
Other antiangiogenic agents being used for the treatment of vascular anomalies include bevacizumab, which is being used in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and thalidomide for HHT and arteriovenous malformations. For more information, Dr. Adams recommended a comprehensive review of vascular anomalies, related genes, and treatments that was published in Circulation Research.
The goal of future drug therapies is to support normal growth, “so we don’t need a maximum tolerated dose,” Dr. Adams said. “We need to be very careful of short-term and long-term side effects.”
Going forward, she said that she would like to see more natural history studies of vascular anomalies, improved outcome measures for clinical trials, adaptive study design, preclinical testing, animal model studies, universal availability of genomic testing, improvement of NIH funding, research collaboration nationally and internationally, and industry support.
Dr. Adams disclosed that she is a consultant to Venthera and Novartis.
FROM SPD 2021
When should patients with kidney disease receive nephrology referral?
And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.
“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.
The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes.
Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.
They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.
Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Targeting fewer patients to specialty care
Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.
More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.
Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.
Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.
This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”
“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”
Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.
But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.
“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
KFRE tool can be found online
Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.
“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.
This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.
Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.
“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.
The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes.
Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.
They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.
Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Targeting fewer patients to specialty care
Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.
More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.
Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.
Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.
This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”
“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”
Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.
But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.
“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
KFRE tool can be found online
Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.
“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.
This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.
Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.
“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.
The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes.
Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.
They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.
Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Targeting fewer patients to specialty care
Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.
More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.
Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.
Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.
This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”
“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”
Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.
But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.
“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
KFRE tool can be found online
Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.
“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.
This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.
Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first once-weekly growth hormone for children
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).
The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).
“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.
“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.
Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.
The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.
The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.
Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon
Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.
“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.
For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.
In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.
And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.
“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.
“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”
However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.
Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”
“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.
However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.
“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD
The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.
The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.
There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.
The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).
Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.
Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.
Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).
The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).
The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).
“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.
“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.
Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.
The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.
The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.
Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon
Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.
“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.
For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.
In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.
And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.
“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.
“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”
However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.
Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”
“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.
However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.
“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD
The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.
The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.
There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.
The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).
Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.
Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.
Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).
The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).
The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).
“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.
“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.
Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.
The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.
The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.
Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon
Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.
“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.
For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.
In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.
And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.
“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.
“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”
However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.
Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”
“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.
However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.
“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD
The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.
The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.
There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.
The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).
Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.
Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.
Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).
The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Politics or protection? What’s behind the push for boosters?
That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.
On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.
So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
White House supports boosters
In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.
“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.
“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”
He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.
“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.
Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.
Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
‘FDA in a very difficult position’
After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.
Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.
“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.
“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”
He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.
“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”
Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.
“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
Boosters already being given
But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.
Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.
“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.
She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.
Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.
“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
Consequences of a third shot
But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.
In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.
“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”
The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.
They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.
In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.
“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.
On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.
So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
White House supports boosters
In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.
“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.
“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”
He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.
“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.
Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.
Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
‘FDA in a very difficult position’
After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.
Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.
“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.
“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”
He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.
“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”
Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.
“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
Boosters already being given
But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.
Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.
“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.
She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.
Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.
“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
Consequences of a third shot
But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.
In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.
“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”
The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.
They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.
In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.
“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.
On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.
So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
White House supports boosters
In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.
“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.
“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”
He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.
“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.
Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.
Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
‘FDA in a very difficult position’
After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.
Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.
“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.
“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”
He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.
“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”
Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.
“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
Boosters already being given
But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.
Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.
“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.
She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.
Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.
“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
Consequences of a third shot
But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.
In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.
“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”
The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.
They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.
In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.
“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WHO tracking new COVID-19 variant called Mu
The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.
“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.
Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.
As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.
More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.
“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.
The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.
In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”
“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.
“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.
Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.
As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.
More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.
“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.
The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.
In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”
“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.
“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.
Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.
As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.
More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.
“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.
The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.
In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”
“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A long look at long haulers
With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.
In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).
The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.
The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.
The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.
The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.
I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.
We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.
However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.
In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).
The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.
The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.
The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.
The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.
I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.
We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.
However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.
In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).
The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.
The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.
The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.
The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.
I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.
We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.
However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Ask about itch and joint pain in pediatric psoriasis patients, expert advises
During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.
“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”
Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”
Treating pediatric psoriasis
. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”
Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.
Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”
Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.
In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments.
Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH
Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
• It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
• It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
• It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
• Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above.
• With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream.
Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.
This article was updated 6/16/22.
During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.
“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”
Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”
Treating pediatric psoriasis
. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”
Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.
Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”
Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.
In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments.
Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH
Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
• It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
• It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
• It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
• Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above.
• With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream.
Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.
This article was updated 6/16/22.
During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.
“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”
Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”
Treating pediatric psoriasis
. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”
Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.
Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”
Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.
In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments.
Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”
Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH
Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
• It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
• It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
• It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
• Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above.
• With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream.
Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.
This article was updated 6/16/22.
FROM SPD 2021
COVID-19 linked to baby bust in high-income countries
In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.
Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.
Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.
A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.
The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.
The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.
“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.
Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rebounds
Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.
“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”
Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.
According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”
Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.
As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.
Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”
As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.
The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”
The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.
Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.
Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.
A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.
The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.
The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.
“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.
Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rebounds
Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.
“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”
Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.
According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”
Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.
As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.
Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”
As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.
The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”
The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.
Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.
Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.
A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.
The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.
The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.
“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.
Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rebounds
Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.
“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”
Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.
According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”
Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.
As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.
Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”
As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.
The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”
The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.