MDedge Pediatrics

In January in many states, the start of a new year also means the start of a new legislative session. For LGBTQ youth and their families, these sessions can create a significant amount of anxiety, as legislators in several states introduce legislation to curtail the rights of this population. In some cases, legislators have attempted to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care to the trans and gender-diverse adolescents that many of us provide care to on a daily basis. As pediatricians, we have an important role in advocating for legislation at the local, state, and federal level that improves the lives of the LGBTQ patients we serve.

2020 started on a positive note for LGBTQ children and adolescents, with Virginia becoming the 20th state to ban conversion therapy for minors. Legislation was introduced in several other states to prohibit this practice, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio, and but they ultimately died in committee or were never referred. While there is not yet a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, legislation was introduced in the last three U.S. Congress sessions to ban this harmful practice. In June 2020, the Supreme Court decision in Bostock vs. Clayton County stated that employers could not fire an employee solely because of that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

However, 19 separate bills were introduced in 2020 alone in states across the United States that would prohibit gender-affirming care for adolescents under age 18.¹ Many of these bills also would make the provision of gender-affirming medical care codified as felony child abuse, with loss of licensure, fines and/or jail time a possibility for physicians who prescribe hormones or puberty blockers for gender-affirming care to minors. Fortunately, these bills either died in committee or never had a hearing. However, legislation has been prefiled in several states for their 2021 session to again attempt to prohibit minors from obtaining gender-affirming medical care and/or criminalizing the provision of this care by physicians. Other bills were filed or have been prefiled again to allow various medical and mental health providers to refuse to treat LGBTQ patients because of their personal religious beliefs and/or forcing these same providers to tell a parent if a minor reveals to that provider that they are LGBTQ.

Even if this legislation does not pass or get a hearing, the fact that the bills were introduced can have a profound impact on LGBTQ patients and their families. After a bill was introduced in Texas in their 2017 legislative session that would require trans and gender-diverse (TGD) people to use the bathroom based on their sex assigned at birth, the Trevor Project reported that it had an increase of 34% in crisis calls from trans youth who were in distress.² This was similar, but slightly less, than was reported by the Trevor Project in September 2015 when in the run-up to a vote on Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, advertising was run equating trans women as predators who could be lying in wait in bathrooms. On the converse, when LGBTQ youth feel supported in the media, courts, and legislatures, this can have a positive impact on their mental health. A 2017 study found that, in states who enacted same-sex marriage laws prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, compared with those who did not, there was a 7% relative reduction in the proportion of high school students who attempted suicide.³

The American Academy of Pediatrics published its policy statement in September 2018 outlining suggestions for pediatricians to provide support to TGD youth.⁴ In this position statement, recommendation No. 7 states “that pediatricians have a role in advocating for policies and laws that protect youth who identify as TGD from discrimination and violence.” Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to use our voices to support our LGBTQ youth. In 2020, several pediatricians from the South Dakota chapter of the AAP provided testimony – and organized public rallies – against legislation in that state which would have made gender-affirming care to minors under age 16 punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison.⁵

So what can you do? First, get to know your local and state legislators. While it was difficult to meet them in person for much of 2020, you can always call their district and/or Capitol offices, email them, or fill out their constituent contact form typically found on their website. Let them know that you oppose bills which introduce discrimination against your LGBTQ patients or threaten to criminalize the care that you provide to these patients.

Second, work with your state medical association or state AAP chapter to encourage them to oppose these harmful laws and support laws that improve the lives of LGBTQ patients. Third, you can write op-eds to your local newspaper, expressing your support for your patients and outlining the detrimental effects that anti-LGBTQ laws have on your patients. Lastly, you can be active on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media platforms sharing stories of how harmful or helpful certain pieces of legislation can be for your patients.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Cooper at [email protected].

References

1. “Leglislation affecting LGBT rights across country.” www.aclu.org.

2. “Bathroom Bills Fuel Spike In Calls From Trans Youth To Suicide Hotline.” www.outsmartmagazine.com. 2017 Aug.

3. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529.

4. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2162.

5. Wyckoff AS. “State bills seek to place limits on transgender care, ‘punish’ physicians.” AAP News. 2020 Feb 18.

In January in many states, the start of a new year also means the start of a new legislative session. For LGBTQ youth and their families, these sessions can create a significant amount of anxiety, as legislators in several states introduce legislation to curtail the rights of this population. In some cases, legislators have attempted to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care to the trans and gender-diverse adolescents that many of us provide care to on a daily basis. As pediatricians, we have an important role in advocating for legislation at the local, state, and federal level that improves the lives of the LGBTQ patients we serve.

2020 started on a positive note for LGBTQ children and adolescents, with Virginia becoming the 20th state to ban conversion therapy for minors. Legislation was introduced in several other states to prohibit this practice, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio, and but they ultimately died in committee or were never referred. While there is not yet a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, legislation was introduced in the last three U.S. Congress sessions to ban this harmful practice. In June 2020, the Supreme Court decision in Bostock vs. Clayton County stated that employers could not fire an employee solely because of that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

However, 19 separate bills were introduced in 2020 alone in states across the United States that would prohibit gender-affirming care for adolescents under age 18.¹ Many of these bills also would make the provision of gender-affirming medical care codified as felony child abuse, with loss of licensure, fines and/or jail time a possibility for physicians who prescribe hormones or puberty blockers for gender-affirming care to minors. Fortunately, these bills either died in committee or never had a hearing. However, legislation has been prefiled in several states for their 2021 session to again attempt to prohibit minors from obtaining gender-affirming medical care and/or criminalizing the provision of this care by physicians. Other bills were filed or have been prefiled again to allow various medical and mental health providers to refuse to treat LGBTQ patients because of their personal religious beliefs and/or forcing these same providers to tell a parent if a minor reveals to that provider that they are LGBTQ.

Even if this legislation does not pass or get a hearing, the fact that the bills were introduced can have a profound impact on LGBTQ patients and their families. After a bill was introduced in Texas in their 2017 legislative session that would require trans and gender-diverse (TGD) people to use the bathroom based on their sex assigned at birth, the Trevor Project reported that it had an increase of 34% in crisis calls from trans youth who were in distress.² This was similar, but slightly less, than was reported by the Trevor Project in September 2015 when in the run-up to a vote on Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, advertising was run equating trans women as predators who could be lying in wait in bathrooms. On the converse, when LGBTQ youth feel supported in the media, courts, and legislatures, this can have a positive impact on their mental health. A 2017 study found that, in states who enacted same-sex marriage laws prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, compared with those who did not, there was a 7% relative reduction in the proportion of high school students who attempted suicide.³

The American Academy of Pediatrics published its policy statement in September 2018 outlining suggestions for pediatricians to provide support to TGD youth.⁴ In this position statement, recommendation No. 7 states “that pediatricians have a role in advocating for policies and laws that protect youth who identify as TGD from discrimination and violence.” Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to use our voices to support our LGBTQ youth. In 2020, several pediatricians from the South Dakota chapter of the AAP provided testimony – and organized public rallies – against legislation in that state which would have made gender-affirming care to minors under age 16 punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison.⁵

So what can you do? First, get to know your local and state legislators. While it was difficult to meet them in person for much of 2020, you can always call their district and/or Capitol offices, email them, or fill out their constituent contact form typically found on their website. Let them know that you oppose bills which introduce discrimination against your LGBTQ patients or threaten to criminalize the care that you provide to these patients.

Second, work with your state medical association or state AAP chapter to encourage them to oppose these harmful laws and support laws that improve the lives of LGBTQ patients. Third, you can write op-eds to your local newspaper, expressing your support for your patients and outlining the detrimental effects that anti-LGBTQ laws have on your patients. Lastly, you can be active on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media platforms sharing stories of how harmful or helpful certain pieces of legislation can be for your patients.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Cooper at [email protected].

References

1. “Leglislation affecting LGBT rights across country.” www.aclu.org.

2. “Bathroom Bills Fuel Spike In Calls From Trans Youth To Suicide Hotline.” www.outsmartmagazine.com. 2017 Aug.

3. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529.

4. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2162.

5. Wyckoff AS. “State bills seek to place limits on transgender care, ‘punish’ physicians.” AAP News. 2020 Feb 18.

In January in many states, the start of a new year also means the start of a new legislative session. For LGBTQ youth and their families, these sessions can create a significant amount of anxiety, as legislators in several states introduce legislation to curtail the rights of this population. In some cases, legislators have attempted to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care to the trans and gender-diverse adolescents that many of us provide care to on a daily basis. As pediatricians, we have an important role in advocating for legislation at the local, state, and federal level that improves the lives of the LGBTQ patients we serve.

2020 started on a positive note for LGBTQ children and adolescents, with Virginia becoming the 20th state to ban conversion therapy for minors. Legislation was introduced in several other states to prohibit this practice, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio, and but they ultimately died in committee or were never referred. While there is not yet a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, legislation was introduced in the last three U.S. Congress sessions to ban this harmful practice. In June 2020, the Supreme Court decision in Bostock vs. Clayton County stated that employers could not fire an employee solely because of that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

However, 19 separate bills were introduced in 2020 alone in states across the United States that would prohibit gender-affirming care for adolescents under age 18.¹ Many of these bills also would make the provision of gender-affirming medical care codified as felony child abuse, with loss of licensure, fines and/or jail time a possibility for physicians who prescribe hormones or puberty blockers for gender-affirming care to minors. Fortunately, these bills either died in committee or never had a hearing. However, legislation has been prefiled in several states for their 2021 session to again attempt to prohibit minors from obtaining gender-affirming medical care and/or criminalizing the provision of this care by physicians. Other bills were filed or have been prefiled again to allow various medical and mental health providers to refuse to treat LGBTQ patients because of their personal religious beliefs and/or forcing these same providers to tell a parent if a minor reveals to that provider that they are LGBTQ.

Even if this legislation does not pass or get a hearing, the fact that the bills were introduced can have a profound impact on LGBTQ patients and their families. After a bill was introduced in Texas in their 2017 legislative session that would require trans and gender-diverse (TGD) people to use the bathroom based on their sex assigned at birth, the Trevor Project reported that it had an increase of 34% in crisis calls from trans youth who were in distress.² This was similar, but slightly less, than was reported by the Trevor Project in September 2015 when in the run-up to a vote on Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, advertising was run equating trans women as predators who could be lying in wait in bathrooms. On the converse, when LGBTQ youth feel supported in the media, courts, and legislatures, this can have a positive impact on their mental health. A 2017 study found that, in states who enacted same-sex marriage laws prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, compared with those who did not, there was a 7% relative reduction in the proportion of high school students who attempted suicide.³

The American Academy of Pediatrics published its policy statement in September 2018 outlining suggestions for pediatricians to provide support to TGD youth.⁴ In this position statement, recommendation No. 7 states “that pediatricians have a role in advocating for policies and laws that protect youth who identify as TGD from discrimination and violence.” Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to use our voices to support our LGBTQ youth. In 2020, several pediatricians from the South Dakota chapter of the AAP provided testimony – and organized public rallies – against legislation in that state which would have made gender-affirming care to minors under age 16 punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison.⁵

So what can you do? First, get to know your local and state legislators. While it was difficult to meet them in person for much of 2020, you can always call their district and/or Capitol offices, email them, or fill out their constituent contact form typically found on their website. Let them know that you oppose bills which introduce discrimination against your LGBTQ patients or threaten to criminalize the care that you provide to these patients.

Second, work with your state medical association or state AAP chapter to encourage them to oppose these harmful laws and support laws that improve the lives of LGBTQ patients. Third, you can write op-eds to your local newspaper, expressing your support for your patients and outlining the detrimental effects that anti-LGBTQ laws have on your patients. Lastly, you can be active on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media platforms sharing stories of how harmful or helpful certain pieces of legislation can be for your patients.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Cooper at [email protected].

References

1. “Leglislation affecting LGBT rights across country.” www.aclu.org.

2. “Bathroom Bills Fuel Spike In Calls From Trans Youth To Suicide Hotline.” www.outsmartmagazine.com. 2017 Aug.

3. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529.

4. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2162.

5. Wyckoff AS. “State bills seek to place limits on transgender care, ‘punish’ physicians.” AAP News. 2020 Feb 18.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents and young adults with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas appear to have better outcomes when they’re treated under pediatric protocols rather than adult regimens, Canadian investigators say.

Results of a study of patients from the ages of 15 to 21 years with either diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Burkitt’s lymphoma treated at regional or community cancer centers in the province of Ontario indicated that adolescents and young adult (AYA) patients treated at adult centers had a more than fourfold risk for disease relapse or progression, compared with their counterparts who were treated at pediatric centers, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and colleagues.

“Our data suggest that pediatric approaches are associated with improved event-free survival and overall survival, primarily due to a decrease in the risk of relapse or progression, while still using lower cumulative doses of chemotherapy,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

The findings echo those seen in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). As previously reported, a study from Nordic and Baltic countries showed that young adults with ALL who were treated with a pediatric regimen had a 4-year event-free survival rate of 73%, compared with 42% for historical controls.

Similarly, a prospective U.S. study reported in 2014 showed that AYA with ALL treated with a pediatric regimen had better overall and event-free survival rates, compared with historical controls.

As with ALL, pediatric and adult regimens for treatment of patients with aggressive mature B-cell NHL differ substantially, with pediatric patients receiving more intensive short-term therapy with lower cumulative doses.

In addition, while pediatric regimens for DLBCL and Burkitt’s lymphoma are identical, adult regimens differ substantially between the two histologies, Dr. Gupta pointed out.

Adult regimens for DLBCL most often incorporate CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) or CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP), whereas Burkitt’s lymphoma in adults is generally treated with more aggressive multidrug regimens, in combination with rituximab.

Rituximab was incorporated into adults’ regimens far earlier than in pediatric regimens, with Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in frontline therapy of adults with DLBCL in 2006, “whereas the first pediatric large-scale randomized controlled trial of rituximab in pediatric mature B-cell lymphoma was only published earlier this year,” he noted.
 

Population-based study

To see how treatment patterns for AYA patients with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas differ between pediatric and adult centers, Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted a population-based study of all AYA in Ontario diagnosed with Burkitt’s or DLBCL from the ages of 15 to 21 years from 1992 through 2012.

AYA from the ages of 15 to 18 years who were treated at pediatric centers were identified through the Provincial Pediatric Oncology Registry, which includes data on demographics, disease treatment, and outcomes from each of Ontario’s five childhood cancer treatments centers.

Adolescents and young adults from 15 to 21 years who were treated at adult centers with adult regimens were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry using chart abstraction by trained personnel at all treatment centers, with all data validated by clinician reviewers.

A total of 176 patients were identified, 129 with DLBCL and 47 with Burkitt’s lymphoma. In all, 62 of the 176 patients (35.2%) were treated in pediatric centers. Not surprisingly, multivariable analysis showed that AYA treated in adult centers were older, and more likely to have been treated earlier in the study period.

Comparing treatment patterns by locus of care, the investigators found that patients with DLBCL in pediatric centers received half of the cumulative anthracycline doses as those in adult centers (150 mg/m² vs. 300 mg/m²; P < .001) and about 75% of cumulative alkylating agent doses (3,300 mg/m² vs. 4,465 mg/m²; P = .009).

Patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma had identical exposures to anthracyclines in pediatric vs. adult centers (120 mg/m²), but those treated in pediatric centers had half the exposure to alkylators as those treated in adult centers (3,300 mg/m² vs. 6,600 mg/m²; P = .03).

Among patients with DLBCL, none of those treated at pediatric centers received rituximab, compared with 32.3% of those treated at adult centers (P < .001), whereas only a handful of patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma received rituximab in both pediatric and adult centers (nonsignificant).

Among all patients. 5-year event-free survival was 82.3% for those treated in pediatric centers, compared with 66.7% for those treated in adult centers (P = .02). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 85.5% and 71.1% (P = .03).

Looking at survival by histology, the investigators saw that 5-year event-free survival for patients with DLBCL was 83.3% when they were treated like children vs. 66.7% when they were treated like adults (P = .04). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 88.9% and 72% (P = .04).

Both event-free survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) and overall survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) were numerically but not statistically higher among patients with Burkitt’s treated at pediatric vs. adult centers.

An analysis adjusting for disease histology, stage, and time period of diagnosis showed that treatment at an adult center was associated with higher risk for death, with a hazard ratio of 2.4 (P = .03).

Additionally, an analysis adjusted for age, disease stage, and histology showed that patients treated in adult centers had a significantly increased risk of relapse or progression, compared with a HR of 4.4 (95% confidence interval; P = .008).

There were no significant differences in the risk of treatment-related mortality between the center types, however.

“It is important to note, however, that pediatric approaches to mature B-cell NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] are associated with increased inpatient needs as compared to adult approaches, and with greater supportive care requirements. Thus the safety of such approaches in adults centers need to be established,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Lower doses, better outcomes

In the question and answer session following the presentation, Jennifer Teichman, MD, MSc, a fellow in hematology at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study asked why patients treated at adult centers would have higher relapse rates despite receiving higher doses of chemotherapy, noting that the poorer outcomes in those patients were not attributable to treatment-related mortality.

“I think one of the distinctions is that higher cumulative doses versus higher intensity of treatment over a shorter period of time are two different things, perhaps, and so giving lower cumulative doses but over a short period of time, and so giving higher intensity within that short period of time, may be what explains the higher success rate in pediatric trials,” Dr. Gupta said.

R. Michael Crump, MD, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, also in Toronto, asked whether the study results could have been influenced by differences between the pediatric center and adult center datasets in regard to pathology review, staging information, and International Prognostic Index.

Dr. Gupta acknowledged that, while the pediatric data were captured prospectively at each center by pediatric cancer registry staff and adult data were extracted retrospectively by trained chart reviewers, “the information that we were collecting was relatively basic – basic stage, basic histology, and that is a limitation.”

He also noted that clinicians reviewed the submitted retrospective data for completeness and had the ability to request chart extractors to return to a particular record for additional information or to correct potential errors.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the C17 Council on Children’s Cancer & Blood Disorders, and the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Teichman, and Dr. Crump all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta S et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 708.

Adolescents and young adults with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas appear to have better outcomes when they’re treated under pediatric protocols rather than adult regimens, Canadian investigators say.

Results of a study of patients from the ages of 15 to 21 years with either diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Burkitt’s lymphoma treated at regional or community cancer centers in the province of Ontario indicated that adolescents and young adult (AYA) patients treated at adult centers had a more than fourfold risk for disease relapse or progression, compared with their counterparts who were treated at pediatric centers, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and colleagues.

“Our data suggest that pediatric approaches are associated with improved event-free survival and overall survival, primarily due to a decrease in the risk of relapse or progression, while still using lower cumulative doses of chemotherapy,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

The findings echo those seen in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). As previously reported, a study from Nordic and Baltic countries showed that young adults with ALL who were treated with a pediatric regimen had a 4-year event-free survival rate of 73%, compared with 42% for historical controls.

Similarly, a prospective U.S. study reported in 2014 showed that AYA with ALL treated with a pediatric regimen had better overall and event-free survival rates, compared with historical controls.

As with ALL, pediatric and adult regimens for treatment of patients with aggressive mature B-cell NHL differ substantially, with pediatric patients receiving more intensive short-term therapy with lower cumulative doses.

In addition, while pediatric regimens for DLBCL and Burkitt’s lymphoma are identical, adult regimens differ substantially between the two histologies, Dr. Gupta pointed out.

Adult regimens for DLBCL most often incorporate CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) or CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP), whereas Burkitt’s lymphoma in adults is generally treated with more aggressive multidrug regimens, in combination with rituximab.

Rituximab was incorporated into adults’ regimens far earlier than in pediatric regimens, with Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in frontline therapy of adults with DLBCL in 2006, “whereas the first pediatric large-scale randomized controlled trial of rituximab in pediatric mature B-cell lymphoma was only published earlier this year,” he noted.
 

Population-based study

To see how treatment patterns for AYA patients with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas differ between pediatric and adult centers, Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted a population-based study of all AYA in Ontario diagnosed with Burkitt’s or DLBCL from the ages of 15 to 21 years from 1992 through 2012.

AYA from the ages of 15 to 18 years who were treated at pediatric centers were identified through the Provincial Pediatric Oncology Registry, which includes data on demographics, disease treatment, and outcomes from each of Ontario’s five childhood cancer treatments centers.

Adolescents and young adults from 15 to 21 years who were treated at adult centers with adult regimens were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry using chart abstraction by trained personnel at all treatment centers, with all data validated by clinician reviewers.

A total of 176 patients were identified, 129 with DLBCL and 47 with Burkitt’s lymphoma. In all, 62 of the 176 patients (35.2%) were treated in pediatric centers. Not surprisingly, multivariable analysis showed that AYA treated in adult centers were older, and more likely to have been treated earlier in the study period.

Comparing treatment patterns by locus of care, the investigators found that patients with DLBCL in pediatric centers received half of the cumulative anthracycline doses as those in adult centers (150 mg/m² vs. 300 mg/m²; P < .001) and about 75% of cumulative alkylating agent doses (3,300 mg/m² vs. 4,465 mg/m²; P = .009).

Patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma had identical exposures to anthracyclines in pediatric vs. adult centers (120 mg/m²), but those treated in pediatric centers had half the exposure to alkylators as those treated in adult centers (3,300 mg/m² vs. 6,600 mg/m²; P = .03).

Among patients with DLBCL, none of those treated at pediatric centers received rituximab, compared with 32.3% of those treated at adult centers (P < .001), whereas only a handful of patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma received rituximab in both pediatric and adult centers (nonsignificant).

Among all patients. 5-year event-free survival was 82.3% for those treated in pediatric centers, compared with 66.7% for those treated in adult centers (P = .02). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 85.5% and 71.1% (P = .03).

Looking at survival by histology, the investigators saw that 5-year event-free survival for patients with DLBCL was 83.3% when they were treated like children vs. 66.7% when they were treated like adults (P = .04). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 88.9% and 72% (P = .04).

Both event-free survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) and overall survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) were numerically but not statistically higher among patients with Burkitt’s treated at pediatric vs. adult centers.

An analysis adjusting for disease histology, stage, and time period of diagnosis showed that treatment at an adult center was associated with higher risk for death, with a hazard ratio of 2.4 (P = .03).

Additionally, an analysis adjusted for age, disease stage, and histology showed that patients treated in adult centers had a significantly increased risk of relapse or progression, compared with a HR of 4.4 (95% confidence interval; P = .008).

There were no significant differences in the risk of treatment-related mortality between the center types, however.

“It is important to note, however, that pediatric approaches to mature B-cell NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] are associated with increased inpatient needs as compared to adult approaches, and with greater supportive care requirements. Thus the safety of such approaches in adults centers need to be established,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Lower doses, better outcomes

In the question and answer session following the presentation, Jennifer Teichman, MD, MSc, a fellow in hematology at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study asked why patients treated at adult centers would have higher relapse rates despite receiving higher doses of chemotherapy, noting that the poorer outcomes in those patients were not attributable to treatment-related mortality.

“I think one of the distinctions is that higher cumulative doses versus higher intensity of treatment over a shorter period of time are two different things, perhaps, and so giving lower cumulative doses but over a short period of time, and so giving higher intensity within that short period of time, may be what explains the higher success rate in pediatric trials,” Dr. Gupta said.

R. Michael Crump, MD, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, also in Toronto, asked whether the study results could have been influenced by differences between the pediatric center and adult center datasets in regard to pathology review, staging information, and International Prognostic Index.

Dr. Gupta acknowledged that, while the pediatric data were captured prospectively at each center by pediatric cancer registry staff and adult data were extracted retrospectively by trained chart reviewers, “the information that we were collecting was relatively basic – basic stage, basic histology, and that is a limitation.”

He also noted that clinicians reviewed the submitted retrospective data for completeness and had the ability to request chart extractors to return to a particular record for additional information or to correct potential errors.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the C17 Council on Children’s Cancer & Blood Disorders, and the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Teichman, and Dr. Crump all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta S et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 708.

Adolescents and young adults with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas appear to have better outcomes when they’re treated under pediatric protocols rather than adult regimens, Canadian investigators say.

Results of a study of patients from the ages of 15 to 21 years with either diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Burkitt’s lymphoma treated at regional or community cancer centers in the province of Ontario indicated that adolescents and young adult (AYA) patients treated at adult centers had a more than fourfold risk for disease relapse or progression, compared with their counterparts who were treated at pediatric centers, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and colleagues.

“Our data suggest that pediatric approaches are associated with improved event-free survival and overall survival, primarily due to a decrease in the risk of relapse or progression, while still using lower cumulative doses of chemotherapy,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

The findings echo those seen in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). As previously reported, a study from Nordic and Baltic countries showed that young adults with ALL who were treated with a pediatric regimen had a 4-year event-free survival rate of 73%, compared with 42% for historical controls.

Similarly, a prospective U.S. study reported in 2014 showed that AYA with ALL treated with a pediatric regimen had better overall and event-free survival rates, compared with historical controls.

As with ALL, pediatric and adult regimens for treatment of patients with aggressive mature B-cell NHL differ substantially, with pediatric patients receiving more intensive short-term therapy with lower cumulative doses.

In addition, while pediatric regimens for DLBCL and Burkitt’s lymphoma are identical, adult regimens differ substantially between the two histologies, Dr. Gupta pointed out.

Adult regimens for DLBCL most often incorporate CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) or CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP), whereas Burkitt’s lymphoma in adults is generally treated with more aggressive multidrug regimens, in combination with rituximab.

Rituximab was incorporated into adults’ regimens far earlier than in pediatric regimens, with Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in frontline therapy of adults with DLBCL in 2006, “whereas the first pediatric large-scale randomized controlled trial of rituximab in pediatric mature B-cell lymphoma was only published earlier this year,” he noted.
 

Population-based study

To see how treatment patterns for AYA patients with aggressive mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas differ between pediatric and adult centers, Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted a population-based study of all AYA in Ontario diagnosed with Burkitt’s or DLBCL from the ages of 15 to 21 years from 1992 through 2012.

AYA from the ages of 15 to 18 years who were treated at pediatric centers were identified through the Provincial Pediatric Oncology Registry, which includes data on demographics, disease treatment, and outcomes from each of Ontario’s five childhood cancer treatments centers.

Adolescents and young adults from 15 to 21 years who were treated at adult centers with adult regimens were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry using chart abstraction by trained personnel at all treatment centers, with all data validated by clinician reviewers.

A total of 176 patients were identified, 129 with DLBCL and 47 with Burkitt’s lymphoma. In all, 62 of the 176 patients (35.2%) were treated in pediatric centers. Not surprisingly, multivariable analysis showed that AYA treated in adult centers were older, and more likely to have been treated earlier in the study period.

Comparing treatment patterns by locus of care, the investigators found that patients with DLBCL in pediatric centers received half of the cumulative anthracycline doses as those in adult centers (150 mg/m² vs. 300 mg/m²; P < .001) and about 75% of cumulative alkylating agent doses (3,300 mg/m² vs. 4,465 mg/m²; P = .009).

Patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma had identical exposures to anthracyclines in pediatric vs. adult centers (120 mg/m²), but those treated in pediatric centers had half the exposure to alkylators as those treated in adult centers (3,300 mg/m² vs. 6,600 mg/m²; P = .03).

Among patients with DLBCL, none of those treated at pediatric centers received rituximab, compared with 32.3% of those treated at adult centers (P < .001), whereas only a handful of patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma received rituximab in both pediatric and adult centers (nonsignificant).

Among all patients. 5-year event-free survival was 82.3% for those treated in pediatric centers, compared with 66.7% for those treated in adult centers (P = .02). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 85.5% and 71.1% (P = .03).

Looking at survival by histology, the investigators saw that 5-year event-free survival for patients with DLBCL was 83.3% when they were treated like children vs. 66.7% when they were treated like adults (P = .04). Respective 5-year overall survival rates were 88.9% and 72% (P = .04).

Both event-free survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) and overall survival (80.8% vs. 66.7%) were numerically but not statistically higher among patients with Burkitt’s treated at pediatric vs. adult centers.

An analysis adjusting for disease histology, stage, and time period of diagnosis showed that treatment at an adult center was associated with higher risk for death, with a hazard ratio of 2.4 (P = .03).

Additionally, an analysis adjusted for age, disease stage, and histology showed that patients treated in adult centers had a significantly increased risk of relapse or progression, compared with a HR of 4.4 (95% confidence interval; P = .008).

There were no significant differences in the risk of treatment-related mortality between the center types, however.

“It is important to note, however, that pediatric approaches to mature B-cell NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] are associated with increased inpatient needs as compared to adult approaches, and with greater supportive care requirements. Thus the safety of such approaches in adults centers need to be established,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Lower doses, better outcomes

In the question and answer session following the presentation, Jennifer Teichman, MD, MSc, a fellow in hematology at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study asked why patients treated at adult centers would have higher relapse rates despite receiving higher doses of chemotherapy, noting that the poorer outcomes in those patients were not attributable to treatment-related mortality.

“I think one of the distinctions is that higher cumulative doses versus higher intensity of treatment over a shorter period of time are two different things, perhaps, and so giving lower cumulative doses but over a short period of time, and so giving higher intensity within that short period of time, may be what explains the higher success rate in pediatric trials,” Dr. Gupta said.

R. Michael Crump, MD, from the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, also in Toronto, asked whether the study results could have been influenced by differences between the pediatric center and adult center datasets in regard to pathology review, staging information, and International Prognostic Index.

Dr. Gupta acknowledged that, while the pediatric data were captured prospectively at each center by pediatric cancer registry staff and adult data were extracted retrospectively by trained chart reviewers, “the information that we were collecting was relatively basic – basic stage, basic histology, and that is a limitation.”

He also noted that clinicians reviewed the submitted retrospective data for completeness and had the ability to request chart extractors to return to a particular record for additional information or to correct potential errors.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the C17 Council on Children’s Cancer & Blood Disorders, and the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Teichman, and Dr. Crump all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta S et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 708.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.