Clinician Reviews

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.

Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.

Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.

The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.

The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.

Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.

Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.

“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m² or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.

Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.

While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.

“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”

Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.

Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.

“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.

Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.

The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).

Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.

Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.

The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.

This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.

Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.

Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.

The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.

The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.

Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.

Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.

“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m² or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.

Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.

While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.

“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”

Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.

Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.

“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.

Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.

The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).

Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.

Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.

The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.

This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.

Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.

Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.

The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.

The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.

Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.

Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.

“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m² or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.

Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.

While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.

“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”

Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.

Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.

“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.

Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.

The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).

Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.

Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.

The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.

This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.

COVID-19 infection during pregnancy has been linked to a small but significant effect on infant neurodevelopment, suggests a small-scale analysis that points to the need for further study and monitoring during pregnancy.

The study included 24 pregnant women, half of whom had COVID-19 during pregnancy, and their offspring. It showed impairments at 6 weeks of age on the social interactive dimension of a neonatal assessment.

“Not all babies born to mothers infected with COVID show neurodevelopmental differences, but our data show that their risk is increased in comparison to those not exposed to COVID in the womb. We need a bigger study to confirm the exact extent of the difference,” said lead researcher Rosa Ayesa Arriola, PhD, Valdecilla Research Institute (IDIVAL), Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Differing responses to cuddling

Coauthor Águeda Castro Quintas, PhD student, Network Centre for Biomedical Research in Mental Health, University of Barcelona, explained that the tests showed the children born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy reacted “slightly differently to being held, or cuddled.”

“We need to note that these are preliminary results, but this is part of a project following a larger sample of 100 mothers and their babies,” she added. The authors plan to compare their results with those from a similar study.

The group will also monitor infant language and motor development aged between 18 and 42 months.

“This is an ongoing project, and we are at an early stage,” Ms. Castro Quintas said. “We don’t know if these effects will result in any longer-term issues,” but longer-term observation “may help us understand this.”

“Of course, in babies who are so young, there are several things we just can’t measure, such as language skills or cognition,” added coinvestigator Nerea San Martín González, department of evolutionary biology, ecology and environmental sciences, University of Barcelona.

While emphasizing the need for larger sample sizes, she said that “in the meantime, we need to stress the importance of medical monitoring to facilitate a healthy pregnancy.”

The researchers note that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for the newborns of affected mothers remain “unknown.”

However, previous studies of other infections during pregnancy suggest that offspring could be “especially vulnerable,”as the pathophysiological mechanisms of the infection, such as cytokine storms and microcoagulation, “could clearly compromise fetal neurodevelopment.”

To investigate further, they examined the neurodevelopment of infants born both immediately before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2017 to 2021.

Twenty-one women who had COVID-19 during pregnancy were matched with 21 healthy controls. They were studied both during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, completing hormonal and other biochemical tests, salivary tests, movement assessments, and psychological questionnaires, adjusted for various factors.

The team also administered the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (NBAS) to the offspring at 6 weeks of age to evaluate neurologic, social, and behavioral aspects of function.

“We have been especially sensitive in how we have conducted these tests,” said Ms. Castro Quintas. “Each mother and baby were closely examined by clinicians with expert training in the field and in the tests.”

Among those offspring exposed to COVID-19 during pregnancy, there was a significant decrease in scores on the social interactive dimension of the NBAS, particularly if infection occurred before week 20 of gestation.

Other NBAS subscales were not associated with maternal COVID-19 during pregnancy.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Livio Provenzi, PhD, a psychologist and researcher in developmental psychobiology at the University of Pavia (Italy), noted there is a “great need” to study the direct and indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on parents and their children. “Pregnancy is a period of life which shapes much of our subsequent development, and exposure to adversity in pregnancy can leave long-lasting biological footprints.”

Dr. Provenzi, who was not involved in the study, added in the release that the findings reinforce “evidence of epigenetic alterations in infants born from mothers exposed to pandemic-related stress during pregnancy.

“It shows we need more large-scale, international research to allow us to understand the developmental effects of this health emergency and to deliver better quality of care to parents and infants.”

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the University of Barcelona multicenter project and the Government of Cantabria. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

COVID-19 infection during pregnancy has been linked to a small but significant effect on infant neurodevelopment, suggests a small-scale analysis that points to the need for further study and monitoring during pregnancy.

The study included 24 pregnant women, half of whom had COVID-19 during pregnancy, and their offspring. It showed impairments at 6 weeks of age on the social interactive dimension of a neonatal assessment.

“Not all babies born to mothers infected with COVID show neurodevelopmental differences, but our data show that their risk is increased in comparison to those not exposed to COVID in the womb. We need a bigger study to confirm the exact extent of the difference,” said lead researcher Rosa Ayesa Arriola, PhD, Valdecilla Research Institute (IDIVAL), Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Differing responses to cuddling

Coauthor Águeda Castro Quintas, PhD student, Network Centre for Biomedical Research in Mental Health, University of Barcelona, explained that the tests showed the children born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy reacted “slightly differently to being held, or cuddled.”

“We need to note that these are preliminary results, but this is part of a project following a larger sample of 100 mothers and their babies,” she added. The authors plan to compare their results with those from a similar study.

The group will also monitor infant language and motor development aged between 18 and 42 months.

“This is an ongoing project, and we are at an early stage,” Ms. Castro Quintas said. “We don’t know if these effects will result in any longer-term issues,” but longer-term observation “may help us understand this.”

“Of course, in babies who are so young, there are several things we just can’t measure, such as language skills or cognition,” added coinvestigator Nerea San Martín González, department of evolutionary biology, ecology and environmental sciences, University of Barcelona.

While emphasizing the need for larger sample sizes, she said that “in the meantime, we need to stress the importance of medical monitoring to facilitate a healthy pregnancy.”

The researchers note that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for the newborns of affected mothers remain “unknown.”

However, previous studies of other infections during pregnancy suggest that offspring could be “especially vulnerable,”as the pathophysiological mechanisms of the infection, such as cytokine storms and microcoagulation, “could clearly compromise fetal neurodevelopment.”

To investigate further, they examined the neurodevelopment of infants born both immediately before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2017 to 2021.

Twenty-one women who had COVID-19 during pregnancy were matched with 21 healthy controls. They were studied both during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, completing hormonal and other biochemical tests, salivary tests, movement assessments, and psychological questionnaires, adjusted for various factors.

The team also administered the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (NBAS) to the offspring at 6 weeks of age to evaluate neurologic, social, and behavioral aspects of function.

“We have been especially sensitive in how we have conducted these tests,” said Ms. Castro Quintas. “Each mother and baby were closely examined by clinicians with expert training in the field and in the tests.”

Among those offspring exposed to COVID-19 during pregnancy, there was a significant decrease in scores on the social interactive dimension of the NBAS, particularly if infection occurred before week 20 of gestation.

Other NBAS subscales were not associated with maternal COVID-19 during pregnancy.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Livio Provenzi, PhD, a psychologist and researcher in developmental psychobiology at the University of Pavia (Italy), noted there is a “great need” to study the direct and indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on parents and their children. “Pregnancy is a period of life which shapes much of our subsequent development, and exposure to adversity in pregnancy can leave long-lasting biological footprints.”

Dr. Provenzi, who was not involved in the study, added in the release that the findings reinforce “evidence of epigenetic alterations in infants born from mothers exposed to pandemic-related stress during pregnancy.

“It shows we need more large-scale, international research to allow us to understand the developmental effects of this health emergency and to deliver better quality of care to parents and infants.”

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the University of Barcelona multicenter project and the Government of Cantabria. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

COVID-19 infection during pregnancy has been linked to a small but significant effect on infant neurodevelopment, suggests a small-scale analysis that points to the need for further study and monitoring during pregnancy.

The study included 24 pregnant women, half of whom had COVID-19 during pregnancy, and their offspring. It showed impairments at 6 weeks of age on the social interactive dimension of a neonatal assessment.

“Not all babies born to mothers infected with COVID show neurodevelopmental differences, but our data show that their risk is increased in comparison to those not exposed to COVID in the womb. We need a bigger study to confirm the exact extent of the difference,” said lead researcher Rosa Ayesa Arriola, PhD, Valdecilla Research Institute (IDIVAL), Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Differing responses to cuddling

Coauthor Águeda Castro Quintas, PhD student, Network Centre for Biomedical Research in Mental Health, University of Barcelona, explained that the tests showed the children born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy reacted “slightly differently to being held, or cuddled.”

“We need to note that these are preliminary results, but this is part of a project following a larger sample of 100 mothers and their babies,” she added. The authors plan to compare their results with those from a similar study.

The group will also monitor infant language and motor development aged between 18 and 42 months.

“This is an ongoing project, and we are at an early stage,” Ms. Castro Quintas said. “We don’t know if these effects will result in any longer-term issues,” but longer-term observation “may help us understand this.”

“Of course, in babies who are so young, there are several things we just can’t measure, such as language skills or cognition,” added coinvestigator Nerea San Martín González, department of evolutionary biology, ecology and environmental sciences, University of Barcelona.

While emphasizing the need for larger sample sizes, she said that “in the meantime, we need to stress the importance of medical monitoring to facilitate a healthy pregnancy.”

The researchers note that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for the newborns of affected mothers remain “unknown.”

However, previous studies of other infections during pregnancy suggest that offspring could be “especially vulnerable,”as the pathophysiological mechanisms of the infection, such as cytokine storms and microcoagulation, “could clearly compromise fetal neurodevelopment.”

To investigate further, they examined the neurodevelopment of infants born both immediately before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2017 to 2021.

Twenty-one women who had COVID-19 during pregnancy were matched with 21 healthy controls. They were studied both during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, completing hormonal and other biochemical tests, salivary tests, movement assessments, and psychological questionnaires, adjusted for various factors.

The team also administered the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (NBAS) to the offspring at 6 weeks of age to evaluate neurologic, social, and behavioral aspects of function.

“We have been especially sensitive in how we have conducted these tests,” said Ms. Castro Quintas. “Each mother and baby were closely examined by clinicians with expert training in the field and in the tests.”

Among those offspring exposed to COVID-19 during pregnancy, there was a significant decrease in scores on the social interactive dimension of the NBAS, particularly if infection occurred before week 20 of gestation.

Other NBAS subscales were not associated with maternal COVID-19 during pregnancy.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Livio Provenzi, PhD, a psychologist and researcher in developmental psychobiology at the University of Pavia (Italy), noted there is a “great need” to study the direct and indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on parents and their children. “Pregnancy is a period of life which shapes much of our subsequent development, and exposure to adversity in pregnancy can leave long-lasting biological footprints.”

Dr. Provenzi, who was not involved in the study, added in the release that the findings reinforce “evidence of epigenetic alterations in infants born from mothers exposed to pandemic-related stress during pregnancy.

“It shows we need more large-scale, international research to allow us to understand the developmental effects of this health emergency and to deliver better quality of care to parents and infants.”

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the University of Barcelona multicenter project and the Government of Cantabria. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

If you have bacteria in your urine but don’t have symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as burning or frequent urination, you probably don’t need antibiotics. So why did you get that prescription?

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends against antibiotics in this scenario, with exceptions for patients who are pregnant or undergoing certain urologic procedures.

Antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) generally do not help; are costly; and can cause side effects, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance.

Still, antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains common, despite guidelines.

And when researchers recently surveyed 551 primary care clinicians to see which ones would inappropriately prescribe antibiotics for a positive urine culture, the answer was most of them: 71%.

“Regardless of years in practice, training background, or professional degree, most clinicians indicated that they would prescribe antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria,” the researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

Some groups of clinicians seemed especially likely to prescribe antibiotics unnecessarily.

“Medical maximizers” – clinicians who prefer treatment even when its value is ambiguous – and family medicine clinicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics in response to a hypothetical case.

What to do for Mr. Williams?

To examine clinician attitudes and characteristics associated with prescribing antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria, Dr. Baghdadi and his colleagues analyzed survey responses from 490 physicians and 61 advanced practice clinicians.

Study participants completed tests that measure numeracy, risk-taking preferences, burnout, and tendency to maximize care. They were presented with four hypothetical clinical scenarios, including a case of asymptomatic bacteriuria: “Mr. Williams, a 65-year-old man, comes to the office for follow-up of his osteoarthritis. He has noted foul-smelling urine and no pain or difficulty with urination. A urine dipstick shows trace blood. He has no particular preference for testing and wants your advice.”

Clinicians who had been in practice for at least 10 years were more likely to prescribe antibiotics (82%) to “Mr. Williams” than were those with 3-9 years in practice (73%) or less than 3 years in practice (64%).

Breaking a habit

Some prescribers may know not to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria but mistakenly consider certain findings to be symptoms of UTI.

Bradley Langford, PharmD, an antimicrobial stewardship expert with Public Health Ontario, said in his experience, most clinicians who say they know not to treat ASB incorrectly believe that cloudy urine, altered cognition, and other nonspecific symptoms indicate a UTI.

“The fact that most clinicians would treat ASB suggests that there is still a lot of work to do to improve antimicrobial stewardship, particularly outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Langford told this news organization.

Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics is important not just because of the lack of benefit, but also because of the potential harms, said Dr. Langford. He has created a list of rebuttals for commonly given reasons for testing and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria.

“Using antibiotics for ASB can counterintuitively increase the risk for symptomatic UTI due to the disruption of protective local microflora, allowing for the growth of more pathogenic/resistant organisms,” he said.

One approach to addressing the problem: Don’t test urine in the first place if patients are asymptomatic. Virtual learning sessions have been shown to reduce urine culturing and urinary antibiotic prescribing in long-term care homes, Dr. Langford noted.

Updated training for health care professionals from the outset may also be key, and the lower rate of prescribing intent among resident physicians is reassuring, he said.
 

A role for patients

Patients could also help decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics.

“Be clear with your doctor about your expectations for the health care interaction, including whether you are expecting to receive antibiotics,” Dr. Baghdadi said. “Your doctor may assume you contacted them because you wanted a prescription. If you are not expecting antibiotics, you should feel free to say so. And if you are asymptomatic, you may not need antibiotics, even if the urine culture is positive.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Baghdadi received grant support from the University of Maryland, Baltimore Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Coauthors disclosed government grants and ties to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Vedanta Biosciences, Opentrons, and Fimbrion. Dr. Langford reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

If you have bacteria in your urine but don’t have symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as burning or frequent urination, you probably don’t need antibiotics. So why did you get that prescription?

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends against antibiotics in this scenario, with exceptions for patients who are pregnant or undergoing certain urologic procedures.

Antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) generally do not help; are costly; and can cause side effects, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance.

Still, antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains common, despite guidelines.

And when researchers recently surveyed 551 primary care clinicians to see which ones would inappropriately prescribe antibiotics for a positive urine culture, the answer was most of them: 71%.

“Regardless of years in practice, training background, or professional degree, most clinicians indicated that they would prescribe antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria,” the researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

Some groups of clinicians seemed especially likely to prescribe antibiotics unnecessarily.

“Medical maximizers” – clinicians who prefer treatment even when its value is ambiguous – and family medicine clinicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics in response to a hypothetical case.

What to do for Mr. Williams?

To examine clinician attitudes and characteristics associated with prescribing antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria, Dr. Baghdadi and his colleagues analyzed survey responses from 490 physicians and 61 advanced practice clinicians.

Study participants completed tests that measure numeracy, risk-taking preferences, burnout, and tendency to maximize care. They were presented with four hypothetical clinical scenarios, including a case of asymptomatic bacteriuria: “Mr. Williams, a 65-year-old man, comes to the office for follow-up of his osteoarthritis. He has noted foul-smelling urine and no pain or difficulty with urination. A urine dipstick shows trace blood. He has no particular preference for testing and wants your advice.”

Clinicians who had been in practice for at least 10 years were more likely to prescribe antibiotics (82%) to “Mr. Williams” than were those with 3-9 years in practice (73%) or less than 3 years in practice (64%).

Breaking a habit

Some prescribers may know not to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria but mistakenly consider certain findings to be symptoms of UTI.

Bradley Langford, PharmD, an antimicrobial stewardship expert with Public Health Ontario, said in his experience, most clinicians who say they know not to treat ASB incorrectly believe that cloudy urine, altered cognition, and other nonspecific symptoms indicate a UTI.

“The fact that most clinicians would treat ASB suggests that there is still a lot of work to do to improve antimicrobial stewardship, particularly outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Langford told this news organization.

Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics is important not just because of the lack of benefit, but also because of the potential harms, said Dr. Langford. He has created a list of rebuttals for commonly given reasons for testing and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria.

“Using antibiotics for ASB can counterintuitively increase the risk for symptomatic UTI due to the disruption of protective local microflora, allowing for the growth of more pathogenic/resistant organisms,” he said.

One approach to addressing the problem: Don’t test urine in the first place if patients are asymptomatic. Virtual learning sessions have been shown to reduce urine culturing and urinary antibiotic prescribing in long-term care homes, Dr. Langford noted.

Updated training for health care professionals from the outset may also be key, and the lower rate of prescribing intent among resident physicians is reassuring, he said.
 

A role for patients

Patients could also help decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics.

“Be clear with your doctor about your expectations for the health care interaction, including whether you are expecting to receive antibiotics,” Dr. Baghdadi said. “Your doctor may assume you contacted them because you wanted a prescription. If you are not expecting antibiotics, you should feel free to say so. And if you are asymptomatic, you may not need antibiotics, even if the urine culture is positive.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Baghdadi received grant support from the University of Maryland, Baltimore Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Coauthors disclosed government grants and ties to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Vedanta Biosciences, Opentrons, and Fimbrion. Dr. Langford reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

If you have bacteria in your urine but don’t have symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as burning or frequent urination, you probably don’t need antibiotics. So why did you get that prescription?

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends against antibiotics in this scenario, with exceptions for patients who are pregnant or undergoing certain urologic procedures.

Antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) generally do not help; are costly; and can cause side effects, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance.

Still, antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains common, despite guidelines.

And when researchers recently surveyed 551 primary care clinicians to see which ones would inappropriately prescribe antibiotics for a positive urine culture, the answer was most of them: 71%.

“Regardless of years in practice, training background, or professional degree, most clinicians indicated that they would prescribe antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria,” the researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

Some groups of clinicians seemed especially likely to prescribe antibiotics unnecessarily.

“Medical maximizers” – clinicians who prefer treatment even when its value is ambiguous – and family medicine clinicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics in response to a hypothetical case.

What to do for Mr. Williams?

To examine clinician attitudes and characteristics associated with prescribing antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria, Dr. Baghdadi and his colleagues analyzed survey responses from 490 physicians and 61 advanced practice clinicians.

Study participants completed tests that measure numeracy, risk-taking preferences, burnout, and tendency to maximize care. They were presented with four hypothetical clinical scenarios, including a case of asymptomatic bacteriuria: “Mr. Williams, a 65-year-old man, comes to the office for follow-up of his osteoarthritis. He has noted foul-smelling urine and no pain or difficulty with urination. A urine dipstick shows trace blood. He has no particular preference for testing and wants your advice.”

Clinicians who had been in practice for at least 10 years were more likely to prescribe antibiotics (82%) to “Mr. Williams” than were those with 3-9 years in practice (73%) or less than 3 years in practice (64%).

Breaking a habit

Some prescribers may know not to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria but mistakenly consider certain findings to be symptoms of UTI.

Bradley Langford, PharmD, an antimicrobial stewardship expert with Public Health Ontario, said in his experience, most clinicians who say they know not to treat ASB incorrectly believe that cloudy urine, altered cognition, and other nonspecific symptoms indicate a UTI.

“The fact that most clinicians would treat ASB suggests that there is still a lot of work to do to improve antimicrobial stewardship, particularly outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Langford told this news organization.

Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics is important not just because of the lack of benefit, but also because of the potential harms, said Dr. Langford. He has created a list of rebuttals for commonly given reasons for testing and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria.

“Using antibiotics for ASB can counterintuitively increase the risk for symptomatic UTI due to the disruption of protective local microflora, allowing for the growth of more pathogenic/resistant organisms,” he said.

One approach to addressing the problem: Don’t test urine in the first place if patients are asymptomatic. Virtual learning sessions have been shown to reduce urine culturing and urinary antibiotic prescribing in long-term care homes, Dr. Langford noted.

Updated training for health care professionals from the outset may also be key, and the lower rate of prescribing intent among resident physicians is reassuring, he said.
 

A role for patients

Patients could also help decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics.

“Be clear with your doctor about your expectations for the health care interaction, including whether you are expecting to receive antibiotics,” Dr. Baghdadi said. “Your doctor may assume you contacted them because you wanted a prescription. If you are not expecting antibiotics, you should feel free to say so. And if you are asymptomatic, you may not need antibiotics, even if the urine culture is positive.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Baghdadi received grant support from the University of Maryland, Baltimore Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Coauthors disclosed government grants and ties to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Vedanta Biosciences, Opentrons, and Fimbrion. Dr. Langford reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab as an add-on maintenance treatment for children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.

The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.

Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).

In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).

Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.

Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab as an add-on maintenance treatment for children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.

The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.

Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).

In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).

Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.

Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab as an add-on maintenance treatment for children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.

The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.

Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).

In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).

Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.

Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

The first decline in COVID-19 cases among children since early April may have been holiday related, but the shortened week also brought news about vaccination for the youngest children.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, so vaccination could begin as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

Decline may just be underreporting

Over on the incidence side of the pandemic, the total number of cases reported for the week of May 27 to June 2 was about 87,000, a drop of 22% from May 20-26 and the first decline after 7 straight weeks of increases. “Testing and reporting may have been affected by the holiday weekend [since] states may change their reporting schedules, which may cause irregularities in trends,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital association said in their latest COVID report.

The decline in new cases was not spread uniformly across the four major regions of the United States. The count actually went up in the West for the week of May 27 to June 2, while the South saw the largest decline. The Midwest and Northeast, meanwhile, saw new cases drop for the second straight week, the AAP and CHA said.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was up to 13.45 million as of June 2, with children representing 18.9% of all cases since the start of the pandemic, according to the two organizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported figures of 13.14 million and 17.5% on June 6.

The AAP/CHA estimates, however, are based on state data that have become increasingly hard to obtain and subject to inconsistency. “Shortages of COVID-19 tests during surges and the increasing use of COVID-19 home tests likely affect the undercounting of COVID-19 cases,” they noted, and “at times when COVID-19 transmission is low, states might reduce the frequency information is updated.”
 

Vaccinations held steady over the holiday

The ongoing vaccination effort in children aged 5 years and older did not show a Memorial Day drop-off, as initial vaccinations held at 43,000 in 5- to 11-year-olds and at 27,000 in 12- to 17-year-olds for a second consecutive week. That number has ranged from 34,000 to 70,000 for the younger children and from 25,000 to 47,000 for the older group since mid-March, the AAP said in a separate weekly report.

Despite weekly vaccine initiations that have been roughly double those of the older children for months, the 5- to 11-year-olds are still only at 36.0% coverage with at least one dose, compared with 69.5% for the 12- to-17-year-olds. Full vaccination for the two age groups comes in at 29.3% and 59.6%, respectively, as of June 6, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
 

The first decline in COVID-19 cases among children since early April may have been holiday related, but the shortened week also brought news about vaccination for the youngest children.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, so vaccination could begin as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

Decline may just be underreporting

Over on the incidence side of the pandemic, the total number of cases reported for the week of May 27 to June 2 was about 87,000, a drop of 22% from May 20-26 and the first decline after 7 straight weeks of increases. “Testing and reporting may have been affected by the holiday weekend [since] states may change their reporting schedules, which may cause irregularities in trends,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital association said in their latest COVID report.

The decline in new cases was not spread uniformly across the four major regions of the United States. The count actually went up in the West for the week of May 27 to June 2, while the South saw the largest decline. The Midwest and Northeast, meanwhile, saw new cases drop for the second straight week, the AAP and CHA said.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was up to 13.45 million as of June 2, with children representing 18.9% of all cases since the start of the pandemic, according to the two organizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported figures of 13.14 million and 17.5% on June 6.

The AAP/CHA estimates, however, are based on state data that have become increasingly hard to obtain and subject to inconsistency. “Shortages of COVID-19 tests during surges and the increasing use of COVID-19 home tests likely affect the undercounting of COVID-19 cases,” they noted, and “at times when COVID-19 transmission is low, states might reduce the frequency information is updated.”
 

Vaccinations held steady over the holiday

The ongoing vaccination effort in children aged 5 years and older did not show a Memorial Day drop-off, as initial vaccinations held at 43,000 in 5- to 11-year-olds and at 27,000 in 12- to 17-year-olds for a second consecutive week. That number has ranged from 34,000 to 70,000 for the younger children and from 25,000 to 47,000 for the older group since mid-March, the AAP said in a separate weekly report.

Despite weekly vaccine initiations that have been roughly double those of the older children for months, the 5- to 11-year-olds are still only at 36.0% coverage with at least one dose, compared with 69.5% for the 12- to-17-year-olds. Full vaccination for the two age groups comes in at 29.3% and 59.6%, respectively, as of June 6, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
 

The first decline in COVID-19 cases among children since early April may have been holiday related, but the shortened week also brought news about vaccination for the youngest children.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, so vaccination could begin as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

Decline may just be underreporting

Over on the incidence side of the pandemic, the total number of cases reported for the week of May 27 to June 2 was about 87,000, a drop of 22% from May 20-26 and the first decline after 7 straight weeks of increases. “Testing and reporting may have been affected by the holiday weekend [since] states may change their reporting schedules, which may cause irregularities in trends,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital association said in their latest COVID report.

The decline in new cases was not spread uniformly across the four major regions of the United States. The count actually went up in the West for the week of May 27 to June 2, while the South saw the largest decline. The Midwest and Northeast, meanwhile, saw new cases drop for the second straight week, the AAP and CHA said.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children was up to 13.45 million as of June 2, with children representing 18.9% of all cases since the start of the pandemic, according to the two organizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported figures of 13.14 million and 17.5% on June 6.

The AAP/CHA estimates, however, are based on state data that have become increasingly hard to obtain and subject to inconsistency. “Shortages of COVID-19 tests during surges and the increasing use of COVID-19 home tests likely affect the undercounting of COVID-19 cases,” they noted, and “at times when COVID-19 transmission is low, states might reduce the frequency information is updated.”
 

Vaccinations held steady over the holiday

The ongoing vaccination effort in children aged 5 years and older did not show a Memorial Day drop-off, as initial vaccinations held at 43,000 in 5- to 11-year-olds and at 27,000 in 12- to 17-year-olds for a second consecutive week. That number has ranged from 34,000 to 70,000 for the younger children and from 25,000 to 47,000 for the older group since mid-March, the AAP said in a separate weekly report.

Despite weekly vaccine initiations that have been roughly double those of the older children for months, the 5- to 11-year-olds are still only at 36.0% coverage with at least one dose, compared with 69.5% for the 12- to-17-year-olds. Full vaccination for the two age groups comes in at 29.3% and 59.6%, respectively, as of June 6, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
 

A new imaging study hopes to make diagnosing endometriosis quicker, more accurate and reduce the need for invasive surgery.

In October 2020 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Endometriosis published a report that included within its recommendations “a commitment to drive down diagnosis times” for women with the condition. On average, it takes around 8 years for a woman to get a diagnosis of endometriosis, a figure, said the authors of the report, that had “not improved in the last decade.”

Indeed, in its report the APPG said that it was seeking a commitment from Governments in all four nations to reduce average diagnosis times with “targets of 4 years or less by 2025, and a year or less by 2030.”
 

Surgery often needed for endometriosis diagnosis

Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women between puberty and menopause – 1.5 million in the United Kingdom – often results in multiple general practitioner and accident and emergency department visits, multiple scans, and often laparoscopic surgery to confirm the diagnosis, as there is currently no simple diagnostic test for the condition. One of the main reasons for the delay in diagnosis is the lack of noninvasive tests capable of detecting all endometriosis subtypes – ovarian, superficial, and deep disease.

Now, experts at the Endometriosis CaRe Centre and Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford (England), in collaboration with British life sciences company Serac Healthcare, hope to establish a faster process for diagnosing endometriosis.

Christian Becker, codirector of the Endometriosis CaRe Centre in Oxford, and a study lead, said: “There is an urgent unmet clinical need for a noninvasive marker to identify or rule out endometriosis as it is such a very common disease affecting more than 190 million women worldwide.”

In the study, researchers will investigate whether a 20-minute imaging scan can detect the most common types of endometriosis, which currently require surgery to diagnose. In turn, they hope that earlier diagnosis of the condition will allow women to seek appropriate treatment sooner. They will use an experimental imaging marker – ^99mTc-maraciclatide – that binds to areas of inflammation and that can be used in endometriosis to visualize the disease on a scan. The imaging marker has already been used for detecting inflammation in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Between 2 and 7 days before planned surgery for suspected endometriosis, participants will be invited for an imaging scan, and the team will compare the suspected locations of disease detected on the scan with those seen during surgery to confirm whether this imaging test could be an effective noninvasive method of detecting all endometriosis subtypes.
 

Doctor visits and repeated investigations reduced

The researchers commented that the potential strengths of the scan lie in the way the imaging marker binds to areas of inflammation, which may allow doctors to distinguish between new and old lesions and detect endometriosis in areas not easily seen during surgery, such as the lung.

They added that the development of a 20-minute imaging test would reduce the need for repeated visits to doctors, for repeated investigations, and for invasive surgery to obtain a diagnosis. This would ultimately “reduce the time taken to confirm or exclude endometriosis,” they pointed out.

Following the publication of the APPG report in October 2020 the group’s then chair, the late Sir David Amess, said: “Without investment in research, a reduction in diagnosis time, and appropriate NHS pathways, those with endometriosis will continue to face huge barriers in accessing the appropriate support at the right time.”

Krina Zondervan, head of department at the Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, and a study lead, said: “This study highlights that close collaborations between academics, clinicians and industry are important to combine and accelerate discovery and innovation in addressing high-priority areas in women’s health such as endometriosis.”

David Hail, CEO of Serac Healthcare, said: “We are excited about the potential of ^99mTc-maraciclatide to diagnose endometriosis noninvasively and delighted to be working with the internationally renowned team at Oxford on this important first study.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new imaging study hopes to make diagnosing endometriosis quicker, more accurate and reduce the need for invasive surgery.

In October 2020 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Endometriosis published a report that included within its recommendations “a commitment to drive down diagnosis times” for women with the condition. On average, it takes around 8 years for a woman to get a diagnosis of endometriosis, a figure, said the authors of the report, that had “not improved in the last decade.”

Indeed, in its report the APPG said that it was seeking a commitment from Governments in all four nations to reduce average diagnosis times with “targets of 4 years or less by 2025, and a year or less by 2030.”
 

Surgery often needed for endometriosis diagnosis

Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women between puberty and menopause – 1.5 million in the United Kingdom – often results in multiple general practitioner and accident and emergency department visits, multiple scans, and often laparoscopic surgery to confirm the diagnosis, as there is currently no simple diagnostic test for the condition. One of the main reasons for the delay in diagnosis is the lack of noninvasive tests capable of detecting all endometriosis subtypes – ovarian, superficial, and deep disease.

Now, experts at the Endometriosis CaRe Centre and Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford (England), in collaboration with British life sciences company Serac Healthcare, hope to establish a faster process for diagnosing endometriosis.

Christian Becker, codirector of the Endometriosis CaRe Centre in Oxford, and a study lead, said: “There is an urgent unmet clinical need for a noninvasive marker to identify or rule out endometriosis as it is such a very common disease affecting more than 190 million women worldwide.”

In the study, researchers will investigate whether a 20-minute imaging scan can detect the most common types of endometriosis, which currently require surgery to diagnose. In turn, they hope that earlier diagnosis of the condition will allow women to seek appropriate treatment sooner. They will use an experimental imaging marker – ^99mTc-maraciclatide – that binds to areas of inflammation and that can be used in endometriosis to visualize the disease on a scan. The imaging marker has already been used for detecting inflammation in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Between 2 and 7 days before planned surgery for suspected endometriosis, participants will be invited for an imaging scan, and the team will compare the suspected locations of disease detected on the scan with those seen during surgery to confirm whether this imaging test could be an effective noninvasive method of detecting all endometriosis subtypes.
 

Doctor visits and repeated investigations reduced

The researchers commented that the potential strengths of the scan lie in the way the imaging marker binds to areas of inflammation, which may allow doctors to distinguish between new and old lesions and detect endometriosis in areas not easily seen during surgery, such as the lung.

They added that the development of a 20-minute imaging test would reduce the need for repeated visits to doctors, for repeated investigations, and for invasive surgery to obtain a diagnosis. This would ultimately “reduce the time taken to confirm or exclude endometriosis,” they pointed out.

Following the publication of the APPG report in October 2020 the group’s then chair, the late Sir David Amess, said: “Without investment in research, a reduction in diagnosis time, and appropriate NHS pathways, those with endometriosis will continue to face huge barriers in accessing the appropriate support at the right time.”

Krina Zondervan, head of department at the Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, and a study lead, said: “This study highlights that close collaborations between academics, clinicians and industry are important to combine and accelerate discovery and innovation in addressing high-priority areas in women’s health such as endometriosis.”

David Hail, CEO of Serac Healthcare, said: “We are excited about the potential of ^99mTc-maraciclatide to diagnose endometriosis noninvasively and delighted to be working with the internationally renowned team at Oxford on this important first study.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new imaging study hopes to make diagnosing endometriosis quicker, more accurate and reduce the need for invasive surgery.

In October 2020 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Endometriosis published a report that included within its recommendations “a commitment to drive down diagnosis times” for women with the condition. On average, it takes around 8 years for a woman to get a diagnosis of endometriosis, a figure, said the authors of the report, that had “not improved in the last decade.”

Indeed, in its report the APPG said that it was seeking a commitment from Governments in all four nations to reduce average diagnosis times with “targets of 4 years or less by 2025, and a year or less by 2030.”
 

Surgery often needed for endometriosis diagnosis

Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women between puberty and menopause – 1.5 million in the United Kingdom – often results in multiple general practitioner and accident and emergency department visits, multiple scans, and often laparoscopic surgery to confirm the diagnosis, as there is currently no simple diagnostic test for the condition. One of the main reasons for the delay in diagnosis is the lack of noninvasive tests capable of detecting all endometriosis subtypes – ovarian, superficial, and deep disease.

Now, experts at the Endometriosis CaRe Centre and Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford (England), in collaboration with British life sciences company Serac Healthcare, hope to establish a faster process for diagnosing endometriosis.

Christian Becker, codirector of the Endometriosis CaRe Centre in Oxford, and a study lead, said: “There is an urgent unmet clinical need for a noninvasive marker to identify or rule out endometriosis as it is such a very common disease affecting more than 190 million women worldwide.”

In the study, researchers will investigate whether a 20-minute imaging scan can detect the most common types of endometriosis, which currently require surgery to diagnose. In turn, they hope that earlier diagnosis of the condition will allow women to seek appropriate treatment sooner. They will use an experimental imaging marker – ^99mTc-maraciclatide – that binds to areas of inflammation and that can be used in endometriosis to visualize the disease on a scan. The imaging marker has already been used for detecting inflammation in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Between 2 and 7 days before planned surgery for suspected endometriosis, participants will be invited for an imaging scan, and the team will compare the suspected locations of disease detected on the scan with those seen during surgery to confirm whether this imaging test could be an effective noninvasive method of detecting all endometriosis subtypes.
 

Doctor visits and repeated investigations reduced

The researchers commented that the potential strengths of the scan lie in the way the imaging marker binds to areas of inflammation, which may allow doctors to distinguish between new and old lesions and detect endometriosis in areas not easily seen during surgery, such as the lung.

They added that the development of a 20-minute imaging test would reduce the need for repeated visits to doctors, for repeated investigations, and for invasive surgery to obtain a diagnosis. This would ultimately “reduce the time taken to confirm or exclude endometriosis,” they pointed out.

Following the publication of the APPG report in October 2020 the group’s then chair, the late Sir David Amess, said: “Without investment in research, a reduction in diagnosis time, and appropriate NHS pathways, those with endometriosis will continue to face huge barriers in accessing the appropriate support at the right time.”

Krina Zondervan, head of department at the Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, and a study lead, said: “This study highlights that close collaborations between academics, clinicians and industry are important to combine and accelerate discovery and innovation in addressing high-priority areas in women’s health such as endometriosis.”

David Hail, CEO of Serac Healthcare, said: “We are excited about the potential of ^99mTc-maraciclatide to diagnose endometriosis noninvasively and delighted to be working with the internationally renowned team at Oxford on this important first study.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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