Christine Kilgore

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Use of testicular sperm in nonazoospermic couples who had prior in vitro fertilization failure using ejaculated sperm appears to improve embryo development and rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, a retrospective observational study has found.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The study, which won the college’s Donald F. Richardson Memorial Prize Research Paper award, evaluated 112 nonazoospermic couples with an average of 2.3 failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (range of 1-8). The couples, patients at Shade Grove Fertility in Washington, underwent 157 total intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (133 using fresh testicular sperm and 24 using frozen/thawed sperm) and had a total of 101 embryo transfers.

Use of ICSI with testicular sperm compared with prior cycles using ejaculated sperm significantly improved blastocyst development (65% vs. 33%, P < .001), blastocyst conversion rates (67% vs. 35%, P < .001) and the number of embryos available for vitrification (1.6 vs. 0.7, P < .001). Fertilization rates were similar (70% vs. 58%). The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in couples who used testicular sperm were 44% and 32%, respectively.

The findings suggest improved embryo development and pregnancy rates, and offer more evidence “that this might be something we can offer patients who’ve had multiple failures and no other reason as to why,” M. Blake Evans, DO, clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md., said in a interview. “It looks like there is promise, and we need more research to be conducted.”

The integration of the use of testicular sperm at Shady Grove, a private practice fertility center, and the newly completed analysis of outcomes, were driven by studies “showing that testicular sperm has a low DNA fragmentation index and suggesting that it [offers a] better chance of successful IVF outcomes in patients who have had prior failures,” he said.

Almost all of the men who had ICSC using testicular sperm – 105 of the 112 – had a sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) assessment of their ejaculate sperm. The mean SDF was 32% and of these 105 men, 66 had an SDF greater than 25% (mean of 49%), a value considered abnormal. The outcomes for patients with elevated SDF did not differ significantly from the overall cohort, Dr. Evans and coinvestigators reported in their abstract.

Dr. Evans said that it’s too early to draw any conclusions about the utility of SDF testing, and that the investigators plan to start prospectively evaluating whether levels of sperm DNA damage as reflected in SDF testing correlate with IVF outcomes.

“Right now the evidence is so conflicting as to whether [SDF testing offers] information that all IVF patients or infertility patients should be receiving,” he said. “Is the reason that testicular sperm works better because there’s lower DNA fragmentation? We think so. … But now that we see [that it] appears the outcomes are better [using testicular sperm], we need to take it a step further and look prospectively at the impact of DNA fragmentation, comparing all the outcomes with normal and abnormal DNA [levels].”

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview that while “there is increasing evidence – and rather clear evidence – that testicular sperm has less DNA damage,” there has been controversy over available outcomes data, most of which have come from small, retrospective studies. Dr. Trolice was not involved in this study presented at ACOG.

In the case of “very poor outcomes with use of ejaculated sperm and a high SDF index, there seems to be support for the use of testicular sperm on the next IVF cycle,” he said. “But there’s also evidence to support that there’s no significant difference in the outcomes of IUI [intrauterine insemination] or IVF based on the SDF index. So this [study] really took a tremendous leap of faith.”

Dr. Trolice said he looks forward to more research – ideally prospective, randomized studies of men with high SDF levels who proceed with assisted reproductive technologies using ejaculated or testicular sperm.

The research was supported by the division of intramural research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Evans did not report any relevant financial disclosures. One of his coinvestigators. Micah J. Hill, DO, disclosed having served on the advisory board of Ohana Biosciences. Dr. Trolice reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The abstract was first presented by coauthor Lt. Allison A. Eubanks, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, at the ACOG Armed Forces District Annual District Meeting in September 2019.

[email protected]

Use of testicular sperm in nonazoospermic couples who had prior in vitro fertilization failure using ejaculated sperm appears to improve embryo development and rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, a retrospective observational study has found.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The study, which won the college’s Donald F. Richardson Memorial Prize Research Paper award, evaluated 112 nonazoospermic couples with an average of 2.3 failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (range of 1-8). The couples, patients at Shade Grove Fertility in Washington, underwent 157 total intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (133 using fresh testicular sperm and 24 using frozen/thawed sperm) and had a total of 101 embryo transfers.

Use of ICSI with testicular sperm compared with prior cycles using ejaculated sperm significantly improved blastocyst development (65% vs. 33%, P < .001), blastocyst conversion rates (67% vs. 35%, P < .001) and the number of embryos available for vitrification (1.6 vs. 0.7, P < .001). Fertilization rates were similar (70% vs. 58%). The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in couples who used testicular sperm were 44% and 32%, respectively.

The findings suggest improved embryo development and pregnancy rates, and offer more evidence “that this might be something we can offer patients who’ve had multiple failures and no other reason as to why,” M. Blake Evans, DO, clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md., said in a interview. “It looks like there is promise, and we need more research to be conducted.”

The integration of the use of testicular sperm at Shady Grove, a private practice fertility center, and the newly completed analysis of outcomes, were driven by studies “showing that testicular sperm has a low DNA fragmentation index and suggesting that it [offers a] better chance of successful IVF outcomes in patients who have had prior failures,” he said.

Almost all of the men who had ICSC using testicular sperm – 105 of the 112 – had a sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) assessment of their ejaculate sperm. The mean SDF was 32% and of these 105 men, 66 had an SDF greater than 25% (mean of 49%), a value considered abnormal. The outcomes for patients with elevated SDF did not differ significantly from the overall cohort, Dr. Evans and coinvestigators reported in their abstract.

Dr. Evans said that it’s too early to draw any conclusions about the utility of SDF testing, and that the investigators plan to start prospectively evaluating whether levels of sperm DNA damage as reflected in SDF testing correlate with IVF outcomes.

“Right now the evidence is so conflicting as to whether [SDF testing offers] information that all IVF patients or infertility patients should be receiving,” he said. “Is the reason that testicular sperm works better because there’s lower DNA fragmentation? We think so. … But now that we see [that it] appears the outcomes are better [using testicular sperm], we need to take it a step further and look prospectively at the impact of DNA fragmentation, comparing all the outcomes with normal and abnormal DNA [levels].”

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview that while “there is increasing evidence – and rather clear evidence – that testicular sperm has less DNA damage,” there has been controversy over available outcomes data, most of which have come from small, retrospective studies. Dr. Trolice was not involved in this study presented at ACOG.

In the case of “very poor outcomes with use of ejaculated sperm and a high SDF index, there seems to be support for the use of testicular sperm on the next IVF cycle,” he said. “But there’s also evidence to support that there’s no significant difference in the outcomes of IUI [intrauterine insemination] or IVF based on the SDF index. So this [study] really took a tremendous leap of faith.”

Dr. Trolice said he looks forward to more research – ideally prospective, randomized studies of men with high SDF levels who proceed with assisted reproductive technologies using ejaculated or testicular sperm.

The research was supported by the division of intramural research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Evans did not report any relevant financial disclosures. One of his coinvestigators. Micah J. Hill, DO, disclosed having served on the advisory board of Ohana Biosciences. Dr. Trolice reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The abstract was first presented by coauthor Lt. Allison A. Eubanks, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, at the ACOG Armed Forces District Annual District Meeting in September 2019.

[email protected]

Use of testicular sperm in nonazoospermic couples who had prior in vitro fertilization failure using ejaculated sperm appears to improve embryo development and rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, a retrospective observational study has found.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The study, which won the college’s Donald F. Richardson Memorial Prize Research Paper award, evaluated 112 nonazoospermic couples with an average of 2.3 failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (range of 1-8). The couples, patients at Shade Grove Fertility in Washington, underwent 157 total intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (133 using fresh testicular sperm and 24 using frozen/thawed sperm) and had a total of 101 embryo transfers.

Use of ICSI with testicular sperm compared with prior cycles using ejaculated sperm significantly improved blastocyst development (65% vs. 33%, P < .001), blastocyst conversion rates (67% vs. 35%, P < .001) and the number of embryos available for vitrification (1.6 vs. 0.7, P < .001). Fertilization rates were similar (70% vs. 58%). The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in couples who used testicular sperm were 44% and 32%, respectively.

The findings suggest improved embryo development and pregnancy rates, and offer more evidence “that this might be something we can offer patients who’ve had multiple failures and no other reason as to why,” M. Blake Evans, DO, clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md., said in a interview. “It looks like there is promise, and we need more research to be conducted.”

The integration of the use of testicular sperm at Shady Grove, a private practice fertility center, and the newly completed analysis of outcomes, were driven by studies “showing that testicular sperm has a low DNA fragmentation index and suggesting that it [offers a] better chance of successful IVF outcomes in patients who have had prior failures,” he said.

Almost all of the men who had ICSC using testicular sperm – 105 of the 112 – had a sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) assessment of their ejaculate sperm. The mean SDF was 32% and of these 105 men, 66 had an SDF greater than 25% (mean of 49%), a value considered abnormal. The outcomes for patients with elevated SDF did not differ significantly from the overall cohort, Dr. Evans and coinvestigators reported in their abstract.

Dr. Evans said that it’s too early to draw any conclusions about the utility of SDF testing, and that the investigators plan to start prospectively evaluating whether levels of sperm DNA damage as reflected in SDF testing correlate with IVF outcomes.

“Right now the evidence is so conflicting as to whether [SDF testing offers] information that all IVF patients or infertility patients should be receiving,” he said. “Is the reason that testicular sperm works better because there’s lower DNA fragmentation? We think so. … But now that we see [that it] appears the outcomes are better [using testicular sperm], we need to take it a step further and look prospectively at the impact of DNA fragmentation, comparing all the outcomes with normal and abnormal DNA [levels].”

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview that while “there is increasing evidence – and rather clear evidence – that testicular sperm has less DNA damage,” there has been controversy over available outcomes data, most of which have come from small, retrospective studies. Dr. Trolice was not involved in this study presented at ACOG.

In the case of “very poor outcomes with use of ejaculated sperm and a high SDF index, there seems to be support for the use of testicular sperm on the next IVF cycle,” he said. “But there’s also evidence to support that there’s no significant difference in the outcomes of IUI [intrauterine insemination] or IVF based on the SDF index. So this [study] really took a tremendous leap of faith.”

Dr. Trolice said he looks forward to more research – ideally prospective, randomized studies of men with high SDF levels who proceed with assisted reproductive technologies using ejaculated or testicular sperm.

The research was supported by the division of intramural research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Evans did not report any relevant financial disclosures. One of his coinvestigators. Micah J. Hill, DO, disclosed having served on the advisory board of Ohana Biosciences. Dr. Trolice reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The abstract was first presented by coauthor Lt. Allison A. Eubanks, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, at the ACOG Armed Forces District Annual District Meeting in September 2019.

[email protected]

Vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery was successfully implemented – and significantly decreased the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) – in a quality improvement study done at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Our goal was not to prove that vaginal preparation [before cesarean section] works, because that’s already been shown in large randomized, controlled trials, but to show that we can implement it and that we can see the same results in real life,” lead investigator Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Quist-Nelson, a third-year fellow at the hospital and the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, was scheduled to present the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

Resident and staff physicians as well as nursing and operating room staff were educated/reminded through a multipronged intervention about the benefits of vaginal cleansing with a sponge stick preparation of 10% povidone-iodine solution (Betadine) – and later about the potential benefits of intravenous azithromycin – immediately before cesarean delivery for women in labor and women with ruptured membranes.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators compared three periods of time: 12 months preintervention, 14 months with vaginal cleansing promoted for infection prophylaxis, and 16 months of instructions for both vaginal cleansing and intravenous azithromycin. The three periods captured 1,033 patients. The researchers used control charts – a tool “often used in implementation science,” she said – to analyze monthly data and assess trends for SSI rates and for compliance.

The rate of SSI – as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – decreased by 33%, they found, from 23% to 15%. The drop occurred mainly 4 months into the vaginal cleansing portion of the study and was sustained during the following 26 months. The addition of intravenous azithromycin education did not result in any further change in the SSI rate, Dr. Quist-Nelson and associates reported in the study – the abstract for which was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. It won a third-place prize among the papers on current clinical and basic investigation.

Compliance with the vaginal cleansing protocol increased from 60% at the start of the vaginal cleansing phase to 85% 1 year later. Azithromycin compliance rose to 75% over the third phase of the intervention.

Vaginal cleansing has received attention at Thomas Jefferson for several years. In 2017, researchers there collaborated with investigators in Italy on a systemic review and meta-analysis which concluded that women who received vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery – most commonly with 10% povidine-iodine – had a significantly lower incidence of endometritis (Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;130[3]:527-38).

A subgroup analysis showed that the benefit of vaginal cleansing was limited to “those women who have a cesarean section after their water breaks or when they’re in labor,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Azithromycin similarly was found to reduce the risk of postoperative infection in women undergoing nonelective cesarean deliveries in a randomized trial published in 2016 (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1231-41). While the new quality improvement study did not suggest any additional benefit to intravenous azithromycin, “we continue to offer it [at our hospital] because it has been shown [in prior research] to be beneficial and because our study wasn’t [designed] to show benefit,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

The quality improvement intervention included hands-on training on vaginal cleansing for resident physicians and e-mail reminders for physician staff, and daily reviews for 1 week on intravenous azithromycin for resident physicians and EMR “best practice advisory” reminders for physician staff. “We also wrote a protocol available online, and put reminders in our OR notes, as well as trained the nursing staff and OR staff,” she said.

Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that SSI rates are “problematic [in obstetrics], not only because of morbidity but also potential cost because of rehospitalization.” The study shows that vaginal cleansing “is absolutely a good target for quality improvement,” she said. “It’s promising, and very exciting to see something like this have such a dramatic positive result.” Dr. Cansino, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn News editorial advisory board, was not involved in this study.

Thomas Jefferson Hospital has had relatively high SSI rates, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cansino also did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Quist-Nelson J et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020 May;135:1S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662876.23603.13.

Vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery was successfully implemented – and significantly decreased the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) – in a quality improvement study done at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Our goal was not to prove that vaginal preparation [before cesarean section] works, because that’s already been shown in large randomized, controlled trials, but to show that we can implement it and that we can see the same results in real life,” lead investigator Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Quist-Nelson, a third-year fellow at the hospital and the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, was scheduled to present the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

Resident and staff physicians as well as nursing and operating room staff were educated/reminded through a multipronged intervention about the benefits of vaginal cleansing with a sponge stick preparation of 10% povidone-iodine solution (Betadine) – and later about the potential benefits of intravenous azithromycin – immediately before cesarean delivery for women in labor and women with ruptured membranes.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators compared three periods of time: 12 months preintervention, 14 months with vaginal cleansing promoted for infection prophylaxis, and 16 months of instructions for both vaginal cleansing and intravenous azithromycin. The three periods captured 1,033 patients. The researchers used control charts – a tool “often used in implementation science,” she said – to analyze monthly data and assess trends for SSI rates and for compliance.

The rate of SSI – as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – decreased by 33%, they found, from 23% to 15%. The drop occurred mainly 4 months into the vaginal cleansing portion of the study and was sustained during the following 26 months. The addition of intravenous azithromycin education did not result in any further change in the SSI rate, Dr. Quist-Nelson and associates reported in the study – the abstract for which was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. It won a third-place prize among the papers on current clinical and basic investigation.

Compliance with the vaginal cleansing protocol increased from 60% at the start of the vaginal cleansing phase to 85% 1 year later. Azithromycin compliance rose to 75% over the third phase of the intervention.

Vaginal cleansing has received attention at Thomas Jefferson for several years. In 2017, researchers there collaborated with investigators in Italy on a systemic review and meta-analysis which concluded that women who received vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery – most commonly with 10% povidine-iodine – had a significantly lower incidence of endometritis (Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;130[3]:527-38).

A subgroup analysis showed that the benefit of vaginal cleansing was limited to “those women who have a cesarean section after their water breaks or when they’re in labor,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Azithromycin similarly was found to reduce the risk of postoperative infection in women undergoing nonelective cesarean deliveries in a randomized trial published in 2016 (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1231-41). While the new quality improvement study did not suggest any additional benefit to intravenous azithromycin, “we continue to offer it [at our hospital] because it has been shown [in prior research] to be beneficial and because our study wasn’t [designed] to show benefit,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

The quality improvement intervention included hands-on training on vaginal cleansing for resident physicians and e-mail reminders for physician staff, and daily reviews for 1 week on intravenous azithromycin for resident physicians and EMR “best practice advisory” reminders for physician staff. “We also wrote a protocol available online, and put reminders in our OR notes, as well as trained the nursing staff and OR staff,” she said.

Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that SSI rates are “problematic [in obstetrics], not only because of morbidity but also potential cost because of rehospitalization.” The study shows that vaginal cleansing “is absolutely a good target for quality improvement,” she said. “It’s promising, and very exciting to see something like this have such a dramatic positive result.” Dr. Cansino, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn News editorial advisory board, was not involved in this study.

Thomas Jefferson Hospital has had relatively high SSI rates, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cansino also did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Quist-Nelson J et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020 May;135:1S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662876.23603.13.

Vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery was successfully implemented – and significantly decreased the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) – in a quality improvement study done at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Our goal was not to prove that vaginal preparation [before cesarean section] works, because that’s already been shown in large randomized, controlled trials, but to show that we can implement it and that we can see the same results in real life,” lead investigator Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Quist-Nelson, a third-year fellow at the hospital and the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, was scheduled to present the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

Resident and staff physicians as well as nursing and operating room staff were educated/reminded through a multipronged intervention about the benefits of vaginal cleansing with a sponge stick preparation of 10% povidone-iodine solution (Betadine) – and later about the potential benefits of intravenous azithromycin – immediately before cesarean delivery for women in labor and women with ruptured membranes.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators compared three periods of time: 12 months preintervention, 14 months with vaginal cleansing promoted for infection prophylaxis, and 16 months of instructions for both vaginal cleansing and intravenous azithromycin. The three periods captured 1,033 patients. The researchers used control charts – a tool “often used in implementation science,” she said – to analyze monthly data and assess trends for SSI rates and for compliance.

The rate of SSI – as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – decreased by 33%, they found, from 23% to 15%. The drop occurred mainly 4 months into the vaginal cleansing portion of the study and was sustained during the following 26 months. The addition of intravenous azithromycin education did not result in any further change in the SSI rate, Dr. Quist-Nelson and associates reported in the study – the abstract for which was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. It won a third-place prize among the papers on current clinical and basic investigation.

Compliance with the vaginal cleansing protocol increased from 60% at the start of the vaginal cleansing phase to 85% 1 year later. Azithromycin compliance rose to 75% over the third phase of the intervention.

Vaginal cleansing has received attention at Thomas Jefferson for several years. In 2017, researchers there collaborated with investigators in Italy on a systemic review and meta-analysis which concluded that women who received vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery – most commonly with 10% povidine-iodine – had a significantly lower incidence of endometritis (Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;130[3]:527-38).

A subgroup analysis showed that the benefit of vaginal cleansing was limited to “those women who have a cesarean section after their water breaks or when they’re in labor,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Azithromycin similarly was found to reduce the risk of postoperative infection in women undergoing nonelective cesarean deliveries in a randomized trial published in 2016 (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1231-41). While the new quality improvement study did not suggest any additional benefit to intravenous azithromycin, “we continue to offer it [at our hospital] because it has been shown [in prior research] to be beneficial and because our study wasn’t [designed] to show benefit,” Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

The quality improvement intervention included hands-on training on vaginal cleansing for resident physicians and e-mail reminders for physician staff, and daily reviews for 1 week on intravenous azithromycin for resident physicians and EMR “best practice advisory” reminders for physician staff. “We also wrote a protocol available online, and put reminders in our OR notes, as well as trained the nursing staff and OR staff,” she said.

Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that SSI rates are “problematic [in obstetrics], not only because of morbidity but also potential cost because of rehospitalization.” The study shows that vaginal cleansing “is absolutely a good target for quality improvement,” she said. “It’s promising, and very exciting to see something like this have such a dramatic positive result.” Dr. Cansino, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn News editorial advisory board, was not involved in this study.

Thomas Jefferson Hospital has had relatively high SSI rates, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted.

Dr. Quist-Nelson and coinvestigators did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cansino also did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Quist-Nelson J et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020 May;135:1S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662876.23603.13.

For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.

“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”

Much has changed. Knowledge about the pathophysiology of dermatologic diseases has exponentially increased, largely because of basic and translational research by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.

Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.

This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.

Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.

Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”

Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.


 

The new frontier of atopic dermatitis

The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”

As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.

But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”

Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.

“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.

Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.

“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”

Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.

“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.

“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.

JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”

Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.

In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
 

Spillover to other diseases

JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.

“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”

Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.

“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”

Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
 

Action on rare skin diseases

Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.

According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.

Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.

“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.

While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.

Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.

Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”

Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.

 

For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.

“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”

Much has changed. Knowledge about the pathophysiology of dermatologic diseases has exponentially increased, largely because of basic and translational research by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.

Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.

This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.

Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.

Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”

Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.


 

The new frontier of atopic dermatitis

The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”

As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.

But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”

Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.

“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.

Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.

“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”

Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.

“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.

“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.

JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”

Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.

In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
 

Spillover to other diseases

JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.

“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”

Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.

“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”

Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
 

Action on rare skin diseases

Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.

According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.

Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.

“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.

While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.

Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.

Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”

Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.

 

For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.

“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”

Much has changed. Knowledge about the pathophysiology of dermatologic diseases has exponentially increased, largely because of basic and translational research by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.

Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.

This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.

Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.

Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”

Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.


 

The new frontier of atopic dermatitis

The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”

As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.

But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”

Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.

“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.

Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.

“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”

Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.

“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.

“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”

Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.

JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”

Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.

In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
 

Spillover to other diseases

JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.

“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”

Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.

“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”

Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
 

Action on rare skin diseases

Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.

According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.

Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.

“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.

While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.

Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.

Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”

Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.

 

The total number of hysterectomies performed during residency training has declined significantly since 2008, despite an increase in laparoscopic hysterectomies performed, according to a new analysis of data from graduating ob.gyn. residents that has implications for the structure of resident education.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

The investigators abstracted case log data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database to assess trends in residents’ operative experience and found decreases in abdominal and vaginal cases but an increase in experience with laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The median number of abdominal hysterectomies performed per resident over 4 years of training decreased by 57% between 2002-2003 and 2017-2018 (from 85 cases to 37), and the median number of vaginal hysterectomies decreased by 36% (from 31 to 20 cases).

Laparoscopic hysterectomy increased by 115% from a median of 20 procedures in 2008-2009 to 43 in 2017-2018. Even so, the median total number of hysterectomies per resident decreased by 6%, from 112 to 105 procedures during those two time periods. (Data on total hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy were not collected by ACGME until 2008.)

While the absolute decrease in the total number of hysterectomies is “relatively small,” the trend “raises questions about what the appropriate number of hysterectomies per graduating resident should be,” Gregory M. Gressel, MD, MSc, of the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These data point,” they wrote, “to the necessity of maximizing surgical exposure in the face of a declining availability of procedures and the importance of reflecting on which (and how many) procedures an obstetrics and gynecology resident needs to complete before entering clinical practice.”

The training numbers parallel an increased use of laparoscopic hysterectomy in the United States and other countries, as well as a well-documented decline in the total number of hysterectomies performed in the United States, the latter of which is driven largely by the availability and increasing use of alternatives to the procedure (such as hormone therapy, endometrial ablation, and uterine artery embolization).

Hysterectomy still is a “core procedure of gynecologic surgery,” however, and is “at the heart of surgical training in obstetrics and gynecology,” as surgical techniques developed from learning hysterectomy “are applied broadly in the pelvis,” Saketh R. Guntupalli, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Guntupalli, of the University of Colorado at Aurora, Denver, was involved in a survey of fellowship program directors, published in 2015, that found only 20% of first-year fellows were able to independently perform a vaginal hysterectomy and 46% to independently perform an abdominal hysterectomy (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:559-68).

This and other research suggest that fellowship training is “used to address deficiencies in residency training rather than to develop new, specialized surgical skills,” he wrote. Given a dearth of fellowship positions in ob.gyn., “it is impossible to adequately use those avenues to train the number of competent surgeons necessary to address the surgical needs of women’s health in the United States.”

To address such concerns, some residency programs have instituted resident tracking to direct more hysterectomy cases toward those residents who plan to pursue surgical subspecialties. The Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Guntupalli noted, has tried the latter approach “with success.”

An increase in the number of accredited training programs and a decrease in the number of residents per program also might help to improve surgical exposure for residents, Dr. Gressel and associates wrote. Over the 16-year study period, the number of graduating residents increased significantly (by 12 per year) and the number of residency programs decreased significantly (0.52 fewer programs per year).

Additionally, Dr. Guntupalli wrote, regulatory bodies may need to reevaluate how competencies are assessed, and whether minimal numbers of cases “continue to carry the same weight as they did in previous generations.”

In the study, one coauthor is a full-time employee of ACGME, and another receives funds as a director for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The remaining authors had no relevant financial disclosures. There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Guntupalli said he had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):268-73; Guntupalli SR. Obstet Gynecol 2020 Feb;135(2):266-7.

The total number of hysterectomies performed during residency training has declined significantly since 2008, despite an increase in laparoscopic hysterectomies performed, according to a new analysis of data from graduating ob.gyn. residents that has implications for the structure of resident education.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

The investigators abstracted case log data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database to assess trends in residents’ operative experience and found decreases in abdominal and vaginal cases but an increase in experience with laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The median number of abdominal hysterectomies performed per resident over 4 years of training decreased by 57% between 2002-2003 and 2017-2018 (from 85 cases to 37), and the median number of vaginal hysterectomies decreased by 36% (from 31 to 20 cases).

Laparoscopic hysterectomy increased by 115% from a median of 20 procedures in 2008-2009 to 43 in 2017-2018. Even so, the median total number of hysterectomies per resident decreased by 6%, from 112 to 105 procedures during those two time periods. (Data on total hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy were not collected by ACGME until 2008.)

While the absolute decrease in the total number of hysterectomies is “relatively small,” the trend “raises questions about what the appropriate number of hysterectomies per graduating resident should be,” Gregory M. Gressel, MD, MSc, of the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These data point,” they wrote, “to the necessity of maximizing surgical exposure in the face of a declining availability of procedures and the importance of reflecting on which (and how many) procedures an obstetrics and gynecology resident needs to complete before entering clinical practice.”

The training numbers parallel an increased use of laparoscopic hysterectomy in the United States and other countries, as well as a well-documented decline in the total number of hysterectomies performed in the United States, the latter of which is driven largely by the availability and increasing use of alternatives to the procedure (such as hormone therapy, endometrial ablation, and uterine artery embolization).

Hysterectomy still is a “core procedure of gynecologic surgery,” however, and is “at the heart of surgical training in obstetrics and gynecology,” as surgical techniques developed from learning hysterectomy “are applied broadly in the pelvis,” Saketh R. Guntupalli, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Guntupalli, of the University of Colorado at Aurora, Denver, was involved in a survey of fellowship program directors, published in 2015, that found only 20% of first-year fellows were able to independently perform a vaginal hysterectomy and 46% to independently perform an abdominal hysterectomy (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:559-68).

This and other research suggest that fellowship training is “used to address deficiencies in residency training rather than to develop new, specialized surgical skills,” he wrote. Given a dearth of fellowship positions in ob.gyn., “it is impossible to adequately use those avenues to train the number of competent surgeons necessary to address the surgical needs of women’s health in the United States.”

To address such concerns, some residency programs have instituted resident tracking to direct more hysterectomy cases toward those residents who plan to pursue surgical subspecialties. The Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Guntupalli noted, has tried the latter approach “with success.”

An increase in the number of accredited training programs and a decrease in the number of residents per program also might help to improve surgical exposure for residents, Dr. Gressel and associates wrote. Over the 16-year study period, the number of graduating residents increased significantly (by 12 per year) and the number of residency programs decreased significantly (0.52 fewer programs per year).

Additionally, Dr. Guntupalli wrote, regulatory bodies may need to reevaluate how competencies are assessed, and whether minimal numbers of cases “continue to carry the same weight as they did in previous generations.”

In the study, one coauthor is a full-time employee of ACGME, and another receives funds as a director for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The remaining authors had no relevant financial disclosures. There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Guntupalli said he had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):268-73; Guntupalli SR. Obstet Gynecol 2020 Feb;135(2):266-7.

The total number of hysterectomies performed during residency training has declined significantly since 2008, despite an increase in laparoscopic hysterectomies performed, according to a new analysis of data from graduating ob.gyn. residents that has implications for the structure of resident education.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

The investigators abstracted case log data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database to assess trends in residents’ operative experience and found decreases in abdominal and vaginal cases but an increase in experience with laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The median number of abdominal hysterectomies performed per resident over 4 years of training decreased by 57% between 2002-2003 and 2017-2018 (from 85 cases to 37), and the median number of vaginal hysterectomies decreased by 36% (from 31 to 20 cases).

Laparoscopic hysterectomy increased by 115% from a median of 20 procedures in 2008-2009 to 43 in 2017-2018. Even so, the median total number of hysterectomies per resident decreased by 6%, from 112 to 105 procedures during those two time periods. (Data on total hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy were not collected by ACGME until 2008.)

While the absolute decrease in the total number of hysterectomies is “relatively small,” the trend “raises questions about what the appropriate number of hysterectomies per graduating resident should be,” Gregory M. Gressel, MD, MSc, of the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These data point,” they wrote, “to the necessity of maximizing surgical exposure in the face of a declining availability of procedures and the importance of reflecting on which (and how many) procedures an obstetrics and gynecology resident needs to complete before entering clinical practice.”

The training numbers parallel an increased use of laparoscopic hysterectomy in the United States and other countries, as well as a well-documented decline in the total number of hysterectomies performed in the United States, the latter of which is driven largely by the availability and increasing use of alternatives to the procedure (such as hormone therapy, endometrial ablation, and uterine artery embolization).

Hysterectomy still is a “core procedure of gynecologic surgery,” however, and is “at the heart of surgical training in obstetrics and gynecology,” as surgical techniques developed from learning hysterectomy “are applied broadly in the pelvis,” Saketh R. Guntupalli, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Guntupalli, of the University of Colorado at Aurora, Denver, was involved in a survey of fellowship program directors, published in 2015, that found only 20% of first-year fellows were able to independently perform a vaginal hysterectomy and 46% to independently perform an abdominal hysterectomy (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:559-68).

This and other research suggest that fellowship training is “used to address deficiencies in residency training rather than to develop new, specialized surgical skills,” he wrote. Given a dearth of fellowship positions in ob.gyn., “it is impossible to adequately use those avenues to train the number of competent surgeons necessary to address the surgical needs of women’s health in the United States.”

To address such concerns, some residency programs have instituted resident tracking to direct more hysterectomy cases toward those residents who plan to pursue surgical subspecialties. The Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Guntupalli noted, has tried the latter approach “with success.”

An increase in the number of accredited training programs and a decrease in the number of residents per program also might help to improve surgical exposure for residents, Dr. Gressel and associates wrote. Over the 16-year study period, the number of graduating residents increased significantly (by 12 per year) and the number of residency programs decreased significantly (0.52 fewer programs per year).

Additionally, Dr. Guntupalli wrote, regulatory bodies may need to reevaluate how competencies are assessed, and whether minimal numbers of cases “continue to carry the same weight as they did in previous generations.”

In the study, one coauthor is a full-time employee of ACGME, and another receives funds as a director for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The remaining authors had no relevant financial disclosures. There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Guntupalli said he had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):268-73; Guntupalli SR. Obstet Gynecol 2020 Feb;135(2):266-7.

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

bodnarchuk/Getty Images

The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.

Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.

“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.

Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Broadly speaking, pediatric practices should “consider assessing for previous runaway episodes and risk factors for running away using a trauma-informed approach, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.

Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”

Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.

“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”

Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.

When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.

For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.

“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.

Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”

The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.

Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.

As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

bodnarchuk/Getty Images

The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.

Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.

“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.

Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Broadly speaking, pediatric practices should “consider assessing for previous runaway episodes and risk factors for running away using a trauma-informed approach, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.

Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”

Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.

“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”

Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.

When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.

For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.

“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.

Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”

The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.

Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.

As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

bodnarchuk/Getty Images

The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.

Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.

“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.

Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Broadly speaking, pediatric practices should “consider assessing for previous runaway episodes and risk factors for running away using a trauma-informed approach, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.

Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”

Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.

“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”

Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.

When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.

For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.

“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.

Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”

The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.

Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.

WASHINGTON – Research on pravastatin for the prevention of preeclampsia is moving along after “reassuring” data from pilot studies, with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.

Creatas Images

More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.

The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.

In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.

A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.

Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.

There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).

The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.

“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.

The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).

“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.

Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).

Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.

A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).

“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.

In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.

Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.

Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Research on pravastatin for the prevention of preeclampsia is moving along after “reassuring” data from pilot studies, with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.

Creatas Images

More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.

The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.

In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.

A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.

Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.

There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).

The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.

“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.

The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).

“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.

Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).

Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.

A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).

“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.

In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.

Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.

Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Research on pravastatin for the prevention of preeclampsia is moving along after “reassuring” data from pilot studies, with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.

Creatas Images

More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.

The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.

In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.

A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.

Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.

There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).

The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.

“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.

The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).

“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.

Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).

Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.

A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).

“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.

In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.

Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.

Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.