User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
FDA panel backs second dose for Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
European agency supports marketing of abrocitinib for atopic dermatitis
The
The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.
“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.
Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
The
The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.
“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.
Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
The
The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.
“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.
Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
Docs: Insurers’ payment delays, downcoding a ‘revenue grab’
Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.
Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.
“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”
This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)
“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”
In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.
Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing
VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.
VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:
Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.
Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.
Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.
Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”
In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”
In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.
The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”
Some claims routinely downcoded
Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.
This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.
In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.
Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”
In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
‘Revenue-grab strategy’
Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.
“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.
The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.
The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”
A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
Challenge to practice economics
Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.
“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.
While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.
However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.
Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.
Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.
“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”
This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)
“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”
In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.
Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing
VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.
VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:
Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.
Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.
Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.
Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”
In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”
In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.
The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”
Some claims routinely downcoded
Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.
This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.
In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.
Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”
In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
‘Revenue-grab strategy’
Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.
“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.
The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.
The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”
A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
Challenge to practice economics
Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.
“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.
While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.
However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.
Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.
Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.
“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”
This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)
“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”
In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.
Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing
VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.
VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:
Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.
Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.
Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.
Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”
In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”
In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.
The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”
Some claims routinely downcoded
Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.
This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.
In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.
Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”
In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
‘Revenue-grab strategy’
Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.
“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.
The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.
The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”
A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
Challenge to practice economics
Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.
“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.
While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.
However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.
Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Watchful waiting sometimes best for asymptomatic basal cell carcinoma
“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”
As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.
This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.
Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.
The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.
“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.
The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”
“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.
Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.
“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”
As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.
This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.
Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.
The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.
“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.
The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”
“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.
Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.
“Patient preferences, treatment goals, and the option for proceeding with a watchful waiting approach should be discussed as part of personalized shared decision-making,” wrote Marieke van Winden, MD, MSc, of Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. “In patients with a limited life expectancy and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, the time to benefit from treatment might exceed life expectancy, and watchful waiting should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach.”
As little research has been undertaken on watchful waiting in patients with BCC, the expected tumor growth, progression and the chance of developing symptoms while taking this approach are poorly understood. Patients with limited life expectancy might not live long enough to develop BCC symptoms and may benefit more from watchful waiting than active treatment, authors of the study wrote.
This observational cohort study evaluated the reasons for watchful waiting, along with the natural course of 280 BCCs in 89 patients (53% men, median age 83 years) who chose this approach. Patients had one or more untreated BCCs for at least 3 months and the median follow-up was 9 months. The researchers also looked at the reasons for initiating later treatment.
Patient-related factors, including limited life expectancy, comorbidity prioritizations, and frailty, were the most important reasons to choose watchful waiting in 83% of patients, followed by tumor-related factors in 55% of patients. Of the tumors, 47% increased in size. The estimated tumor diameter increase in 1 year was 4.46 mm for infiltrative/micronodular BCCs and 1.06 mm for nodular, superficial, or clinical BCCs. Tumor growth was not associated with initial tumor size and location.
The most common reasons to initiate active treatment were tumor burden, resolved reasons for watchful waiting, and reevaluation of patient-related factors.
“All patients should be followed up regularly to determine whether a watchful waiting approach is still suited and if patients still prefer watchful waiting to reconsider the consequences of refraining from treatment,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that, while the observational and retrospective design was a limitation of the study, this allowed the authors to observe patients avoiding or delaying treatment for BCC in real clinical practice.
The study “shows that few patients developed new symptoms, and few patients who decided to treat after a delay had more invasive interventions than originally anticipated, an encouraging result as we continue to study the option and hone the details of active surveillance in BCC,” Dr. Wehner wrote. “It is important to note that the authors did not perform actual active surveillance. This study did not prospectively enroll patients and see them in follow-up at set times, nor did it have prespecified end points for recommending treatment.”
“Before evidence-based active surveillance in BCC can become a viable option, prospective studies of active surveillance, with specified follow-up times and clear outcome measures, are needed,” Dr. Wehner wrote.
Dr. van Winden did not report any conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Mixing COVID vaccine boosters may be better option: Study
The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.
If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.
“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
“But we needed to have the data,” he said.
Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.
“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.
“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.
Minimal side effects
The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC.
These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.
The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.
“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.
He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.
The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech.
About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.
About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.
Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder.
Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.
The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.
Increase in antibodies
But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.
Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.
People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.
Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.
No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.
If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.
“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
“But we needed to have the data,” he said.
Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.
“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.
“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.
Minimal side effects
The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC.
These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.
The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.
“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.
He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.
The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech.
About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.
About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.
Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder.
Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.
The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.
Increase in antibodies
But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.
Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.
People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.
Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.
No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.
If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.
“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
“But we needed to have the data,” he said.
Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.
“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.
“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.
Minimal side effects
The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC.
These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.
The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.
“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.
He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.
The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech.
About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.
About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.
Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder.
Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.
The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.
Increase in antibodies
But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.
Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.
People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.
Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.
No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The tryptophan photoproduct FICZ and its effects on the skin
The melatonin precursor tryptophan, an amino acid essential in the human diet, has been shown to display antioxidant effects.1 FICZ (also known as 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole) is a photoproduct of tryptophan that is engendered by exposure to UVB.2 This column discusses the beneficial and detrimental influence of FICZ in skin health.
Antioxidant activity
In 2005, Trommer and Neubert devised a skin lipid model system to screen 47 various compounds (drugs, plant extracts, other plant constituents, and polysaccharides) for topical antioxidative activity in response to UV-induced lipid peroxidation. Among the drugs evaluated, they observed that tryptophan exerted antioxidant effects.3
Wound healing potential
A murine study by Bandeira et al. in 2015 revealed that tryptophan-induced mitigation of the inflammatory response and indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase expression may have enhanced skin wound healing in mice who were repeatedly stressed.4
Antifibrotic activity
In 2018, Murai et al. endeavored to clarify the role of FICZ in regulating the expression of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They found that FICZ assists in imparting UV-mediated antifibrotic effects through the AHR/MEK/ERK signal pathway in normal human dermal fibroblasts and, thus, shows promise as a therapeutic option for scleroderma.5
Cutaneous leishmaniasis
In 2019, Rodrigues et al. conducted a quantitative analysis of the relative expression of 170 genes involved in various biological processes in the skin biopsies from patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by infection with either Leishmania major or L. tropica. They identified tryptophan-2,3-deoxygenase as a restriction factor for the disorder.6
Photosensitizing activity
Park et al. showed that FICZ, a tryptophan photoproduct and endogenous high-affinity aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) agonist, exhibits nanomolar photodynamic activity as a UVA photosensitizer in epidermal keratinocytes and, thus, is possibly operative in human skin.7 Syed and Mukhtar add that FICZ is effective at nanomolar concentrations and that future research may elucidate its applicability against UV-induced adverse effects and inflammatory skin conditions.8
FICZ, oxidative stress, and cancer promotion
FICZ is known to display detrimental, as well as beneficial, influences in skin. The tryptophan photoproduct, comparable to UVB, ligates AhR, generates reactive oxygen species, and strongly photosensitizes for UVA. As Furue et al. note, FICZ upregulates the expression of terminal differentiation molecules (i.e., filaggrin and loricrin via AhR), and its application has been shown to suppress cutaneous inflammation in a psoriasis and dermatitis mouse model.2
In 2016, Reid et al. reported that the protein photodamage brought about by endogenous photosensitizers such as tryptophan tyrosine residues can contribute to the deleterious impact of UVA on human skin.9
In 2018, Tanaka et al. showed that FICZ imparts a cascade of events tantamount in some cases to UVB, as it promoted the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, and IL-6 and boosted reactive oxygen species generation in human HaCaT keratinocytes in an AhR-dependent fashion. They concluded that observing FICZ activity contributes to the understanding of how UVB damages organisms.10
That same year, Murai et al. assessed the effects of FICZ on TGF-beta-mediated ACTA2 and collagen I expression in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They determined that it may act as a key chromophore and one approach to mitigating the effects of photoaging may be to downregulate FICZ signaling.11
A year earlier, Brem et al. showed that the combined effect of FICZ and UVA engendered significant protein damage in HaCaT human keratinocytes, with the oxidation yielded from the combination of FICZ and UVA blocking the removal of potentially mutagenic UVB-induced DNA photolesions by nucleotide excision repair. The researchers concluded that the development of FICZ may raise the risk of incurring skin cancer resulting from sun exposure via the promotion of photochemical impairment of the nucleotide excision repair proteome, which in turn inhibits the removal of UVB-induced DNA lesions.12
Conclusion
However, the tryptophan photoproduct FICZ, which results from UVB exposure, presents as a complicated substance, conferring healthy and harmful effects. Much more research is necessary to determine how best to harness and direct the useful activities of tryptophan and FICZ without incurring damaging effects. Nanotechnology may be one useful avenue of investigation for this purpose.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
2. Furue M et al. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Feb;154(1):37-41.
3. Trommer H and Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Bandeira LG et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 9:10(6):e0128439.
5. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jul;91(1):97-103.
6. Rodrigues V et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019 Oct 4;9:338. eCollection 2019.
7. Park SL et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1649-58.
8. Syed DN and Mukhtar H. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1478-81.
9. Reid LO et al. Biochemistry. 2016 Aug 30;55(34):4777-86.
10. Tanaka Y et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018 Nov 25;2018:9298052.
11. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jan;89(1):19-26.
12. Brem R et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 27;7(1):4310.
The melatonin precursor tryptophan, an amino acid essential in the human diet, has been shown to display antioxidant effects.1 FICZ (also known as 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole) is a photoproduct of tryptophan that is engendered by exposure to UVB.2 This column discusses the beneficial and detrimental influence of FICZ in skin health.
Antioxidant activity
In 2005, Trommer and Neubert devised a skin lipid model system to screen 47 various compounds (drugs, plant extracts, other plant constituents, and polysaccharides) for topical antioxidative activity in response to UV-induced lipid peroxidation. Among the drugs evaluated, they observed that tryptophan exerted antioxidant effects.3
Wound healing potential
A murine study by Bandeira et al. in 2015 revealed that tryptophan-induced mitigation of the inflammatory response and indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase expression may have enhanced skin wound healing in mice who were repeatedly stressed.4
Antifibrotic activity
In 2018, Murai et al. endeavored to clarify the role of FICZ in regulating the expression of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They found that FICZ assists in imparting UV-mediated antifibrotic effects through the AHR/MEK/ERK signal pathway in normal human dermal fibroblasts and, thus, shows promise as a therapeutic option for scleroderma.5
Cutaneous leishmaniasis
In 2019, Rodrigues et al. conducted a quantitative analysis of the relative expression of 170 genes involved in various biological processes in the skin biopsies from patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by infection with either Leishmania major or L. tropica. They identified tryptophan-2,3-deoxygenase as a restriction factor for the disorder.6
Photosensitizing activity
Park et al. showed that FICZ, a tryptophan photoproduct and endogenous high-affinity aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) agonist, exhibits nanomolar photodynamic activity as a UVA photosensitizer in epidermal keratinocytes and, thus, is possibly operative in human skin.7 Syed and Mukhtar add that FICZ is effective at nanomolar concentrations and that future research may elucidate its applicability against UV-induced adverse effects and inflammatory skin conditions.8
FICZ, oxidative stress, and cancer promotion
FICZ is known to display detrimental, as well as beneficial, influences in skin. The tryptophan photoproduct, comparable to UVB, ligates AhR, generates reactive oxygen species, and strongly photosensitizes for UVA. As Furue et al. note, FICZ upregulates the expression of terminal differentiation molecules (i.e., filaggrin and loricrin via AhR), and its application has been shown to suppress cutaneous inflammation in a psoriasis and dermatitis mouse model.2
In 2016, Reid et al. reported that the protein photodamage brought about by endogenous photosensitizers such as tryptophan tyrosine residues can contribute to the deleterious impact of UVA on human skin.9
In 2018, Tanaka et al. showed that FICZ imparts a cascade of events tantamount in some cases to UVB, as it promoted the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, and IL-6 and boosted reactive oxygen species generation in human HaCaT keratinocytes in an AhR-dependent fashion. They concluded that observing FICZ activity contributes to the understanding of how UVB damages organisms.10
That same year, Murai et al. assessed the effects of FICZ on TGF-beta-mediated ACTA2 and collagen I expression in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They determined that it may act as a key chromophore and one approach to mitigating the effects of photoaging may be to downregulate FICZ signaling.11
A year earlier, Brem et al. showed that the combined effect of FICZ and UVA engendered significant protein damage in HaCaT human keratinocytes, with the oxidation yielded from the combination of FICZ and UVA blocking the removal of potentially mutagenic UVB-induced DNA photolesions by nucleotide excision repair. The researchers concluded that the development of FICZ may raise the risk of incurring skin cancer resulting from sun exposure via the promotion of photochemical impairment of the nucleotide excision repair proteome, which in turn inhibits the removal of UVB-induced DNA lesions.12
Conclusion
However, the tryptophan photoproduct FICZ, which results from UVB exposure, presents as a complicated substance, conferring healthy and harmful effects. Much more research is necessary to determine how best to harness and direct the useful activities of tryptophan and FICZ without incurring damaging effects. Nanotechnology may be one useful avenue of investigation for this purpose.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
2. Furue M et al. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Feb;154(1):37-41.
3. Trommer H and Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Bandeira LG et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 9:10(6):e0128439.
5. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jul;91(1):97-103.
6. Rodrigues V et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019 Oct 4;9:338. eCollection 2019.
7. Park SL et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1649-58.
8. Syed DN and Mukhtar H. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1478-81.
9. Reid LO et al. Biochemistry. 2016 Aug 30;55(34):4777-86.
10. Tanaka Y et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018 Nov 25;2018:9298052.
11. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jan;89(1):19-26.
12. Brem R et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 27;7(1):4310.
The melatonin precursor tryptophan, an amino acid essential in the human diet, has been shown to display antioxidant effects.1 FICZ (also known as 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole) is a photoproduct of tryptophan that is engendered by exposure to UVB.2 This column discusses the beneficial and detrimental influence of FICZ in skin health.
Antioxidant activity
In 2005, Trommer and Neubert devised a skin lipid model system to screen 47 various compounds (drugs, plant extracts, other plant constituents, and polysaccharides) for topical antioxidative activity in response to UV-induced lipid peroxidation. Among the drugs evaluated, they observed that tryptophan exerted antioxidant effects.3
Wound healing potential
A murine study by Bandeira et al. in 2015 revealed that tryptophan-induced mitigation of the inflammatory response and indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase expression may have enhanced skin wound healing in mice who were repeatedly stressed.4
Antifibrotic activity
In 2018, Murai et al. endeavored to clarify the role of FICZ in regulating the expression of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They found that FICZ assists in imparting UV-mediated antifibrotic effects through the AHR/MEK/ERK signal pathway in normal human dermal fibroblasts and, thus, shows promise as a therapeutic option for scleroderma.5
Cutaneous leishmaniasis
In 2019, Rodrigues et al. conducted a quantitative analysis of the relative expression of 170 genes involved in various biological processes in the skin biopsies from patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by infection with either Leishmania major or L. tropica. They identified tryptophan-2,3-deoxygenase as a restriction factor for the disorder.6
Photosensitizing activity
Park et al. showed that FICZ, a tryptophan photoproduct and endogenous high-affinity aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) agonist, exhibits nanomolar photodynamic activity as a UVA photosensitizer in epidermal keratinocytes and, thus, is possibly operative in human skin.7 Syed and Mukhtar add that FICZ is effective at nanomolar concentrations and that future research may elucidate its applicability against UV-induced adverse effects and inflammatory skin conditions.8
FICZ, oxidative stress, and cancer promotion
FICZ is known to display detrimental, as well as beneficial, influences in skin. The tryptophan photoproduct, comparable to UVB, ligates AhR, generates reactive oxygen species, and strongly photosensitizes for UVA. As Furue et al. note, FICZ upregulates the expression of terminal differentiation molecules (i.e., filaggrin and loricrin via AhR), and its application has been shown to suppress cutaneous inflammation in a psoriasis and dermatitis mouse model.2
In 2016, Reid et al. reported that the protein photodamage brought about by endogenous photosensitizers such as tryptophan tyrosine residues can contribute to the deleterious impact of UVA on human skin.9
In 2018, Tanaka et al. showed that FICZ imparts a cascade of events tantamount in some cases to UVB, as it promoted the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, and IL-6 and boosted reactive oxygen species generation in human HaCaT keratinocytes in an AhR-dependent fashion. They concluded that observing FICZ activity contributes to the understanding of how UVB damages organisms.10
That same year, Murai et al. assessed the effects of FICZ on TGF-beta-mediated ACTA2 and collagen I expression in normal human dermal fibroblasts. They determined that it may act as a key chromophore and one approach to mitigating the effects of photoaging may be to downregulate FICZ signaling.11
A year earlier, Brem et al. showed that the combined effect of FICZ and UVA engendered significant protein damage in HaCaT human keratinocytes, with the oxidation yielded from the combination of FICZ and UVA blocking the removal of potentially mutagenic UVB-induced DNA photolesions by nucleotide excision repair. The researchers concluded that the development of FICZ may raise the risk of incurring skin cancer resulting from sun exposure via the promotion of photochemical impairment of the nucleotide excision repair proteome, which in turn inhibits the removal of UVB-induced DNA lesions.12
Conclusion
However, the tryptophan photoproduct FICZ, which results from UVB exposure, presents as a complicated substance, conferring healthy and harmful effects. Much more research is necessary to determine how best to harness and direct the useful activities of tryptophan and FICZ without incurring damaging effects. Nanotechnology may be one useful avenue of investigation for this purpose.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
2. Furue M et al. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Feb;154(1):37-41.
3. Trommer H and Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Bandeira LG et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 9:10(6):e0128439.
5. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jul;91(1):97-103.
6. Rodrigues V et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019 Oct 4;9:338. eCollection 2019.
7. Park SL et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1649-58.
8. Syed DN and Mukhtar H. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jun;135(6):1478-81.
9. Reid LO et al. Biochemistry. 2016 Aug 30;55(34):4777-86.
10. Tanaka Y et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018 Nov 25;2018:9298052.
11. Murai M et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2018 Jan;89(1):19-26.
12. Brem R et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 27;7(1):4310.
FDA advisors vote to recommend Moderna boosters
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
New safety data regarding COVID vaccines
from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.
Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.
All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.
In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.
This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.
It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth
Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.
Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.
Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.
Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).
Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.
For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.
Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
No safety warnings for pregnant women
The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.
“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”
Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
Questions regarding menstrual disorders
As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.
“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.
Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.
All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.
In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.
This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.
It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth
Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.
Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.
Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.
Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).
Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.
For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.
Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
No safety warnings for pregnant women
The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.
“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”
Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
Questions regarding menstrual disorders
As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.
“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.
Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.
All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.
In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.
This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.
It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth
Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.
Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.
Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.
Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).
Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.
For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.
Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
No safety warnings for pregnant women
The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.
“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”
Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
Questions regarding menstrual disorders
As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.
“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stay tuned for CSI: Olive oil
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Cracking down on food fraud
How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.
Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.
How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.
“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.
Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews
And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?
The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.
Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.
So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
Health care is heading to the hall of fame
We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.
No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.
So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.
We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.
First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.
The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”
Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.
The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.
Fecal microbiota transplants may improve resistance to melanoma immunotherapy
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
In the fall of 2020, Hassane M. Zarour, MD, and colleagues began to pore over raw data from their
Preclinical mouse studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota could influence the response of tumors to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, but FMT had not been previously evaluated in human patients with malignant melanoma whose disease persisted or progressed after medical therapy. Only 30%-40% of melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy, so the researchers’ sense of anticipation was palpable. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward study, so you never know,” Dr. Zarour, a dermatologist and immunologist who is coleader of the melanoma program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center, said in an interview.
For the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science, Dr. Zarour and a team of colleagues, including Diwakar Davar, MD, a medical oncologist/hematologist at UPMC and Giorgio Trinchieri, MD, head of the cancer immunology section at the National Cancer Institute, enrolled 16 patients with advanced melanoma whose disease had persisted or progressed with anti-PD-1 drugs; donors were 7 patients with advanced melanoma who had responded to pembrolizumab, 4 with a complete response and 3 with a partial response, with a median progression-free survival of 56 months.
After donors and patients underwent serial stool sampling and studies to stamp out the potential for transmitting infectious agents, the researchers administered the donor-derived FMT to patients via colonoscopy every 14 days for 3 weeks, followed by pembrolizumab. To their delight, 6 of the 15 evaluable recipients responded to treatment, with a reduction in tumor or long-term disease stabilization. Moreover, responders also showed increased abundance of taxa that were previously associated with response to immunotherapy, increased activation of CD8+ T cells, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells.
“This opens new doors for the future,” Dr. Zarour said. “It’s very encouraging, but I don’t want to overstate the data. It’s a small, nonrandomized trial, but one has to keep in mind that people were skeptical about this work; they didn’t think FMT would work. Now we see many people coming into the field to investigate the role of the microbiome as a therapeutic tool, which is great.”
Teri Greiling, MD, characterized the finding as a key development in understanding the microbiome’s potential to influence the course of melanoma and other diseases. “What’s emerging over the last decade of research is that our immune system has a close, back-and-forth relationship with our microbiota,” said Dr. Greiling, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “From day 1 of birth, we’re colonized by microbes that train our immune system how to function. In response, your immune system keeps those microbes in check and shapes which ones are allowed to colonize, and which ones are a target for attack. Thus, inflammatory responses are generated. Similarly, the goal of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system to fight cancer. This study shows that the immune system continues to need the colonizing microbes in our body to function optimally.”
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was not an option for malignant melanoma patients until 2011, she noted, so the potential for FMT to further improve outcomes is welcome news for patients and their families. “We went from a less than 5% chance of survival with metastatic melanoma to now, with the right combination of checkpoint inhibitors, we’re up over 50%, which is amazing in a decade,” Dr. Greiling said. “Still, we’re losing half of our patients. If [FMT provides] a 30% improvement over that, that would be great, but it’s hard to extrapolate from such small numbers.”
Positive results in an Israeli study
Results from a similar, smaller phase 1 trial of 2 FMT donors and 10 recipients with metastatic melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, from the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, yielded similar results. The FMT protocol in this study included colonoscopy and oral stool capsules, followed by the reintroduction of anti–PD-1 therapy with nivolumab. The two FMT donors had previously been treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy for metastatic melanoma and had achieved a clinical response for at least 1 year. Of the 10 FMT recipients, 1 had a complete response and 2 had a partial response.
“We expected changes in the immune system but did not expect that 3 out of the 10 patients in our study would be turned from nonresponders to responders,” the study’s lead author, Erez N. Baruch, MD, PhD, told this news organization. “Since this was a first-in-human study, we were aiming to assess safety and not clinical responses. [We found] that microbiota modulation can change the immune infiltration within melanoma tumors and by this affect response to immunotherapy.”
Dr. Baruch, an internal medicine resident in the physician-scientist track program at the University of Texas, Houston, said that the findings create a potential new therapeutic paradigm, or a new “playing ground” for drug development that can support existing immunotherapies. “It is important for dermatologists to understand that disruptions of the gut microbiota, mainly by antibiotics, may be harmful to melanoma patients,” he said. “Antibiotics in cancer patients should be used judiciously but of course should not be avoided when there’s an indication.”
As for next steps, Dr. Zarour and colleagues are recruiting more patients to boost their sample size and conducting sequential analysis of the microbiome of study participants “to better determine what the good and bad bugs are,” he said. “There are so many variables, including diet and geography. We need more data.” The hope is to develop a “microbiome signature” to identify patients likely to respond to FMT, and maybe one day, a probiotic capsule that patients take to optimize their response to immunotherapy.
“We don’t want to say that the microbiome is responsible for everything, but it’s responsible for some of the response and some of the resistance to treatment,” Dr. Zarour said. “So, we want to identify what candidate nonresponders are more likely to respond to FMT and be able to stick the right stool in the donor. This goes to better education of the microbiome signature. We are working hard on that.”
Dr. Baruch added that performing FMT for melanoma patients requires tight collaborations between oncologists, dermatologists, GI, and infectious disease experts. “These usually can be done in the setting of large cancer centers and will probably not be available in any hospital,” he said. “This is why understanding the mechanisms and developing an FMT-like drug is important. We are focusing on studying the mechanisms behind the clinical effect in order to develop a drug with an FMT-like effect without the safety and logistic issues related to FMTs.”
Tamia A. Harris-Tryon, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is studying how diet and the microbiota impact skin immunity, underscored the importance of evaluating the characteristics of the diet of patients as trials of FMT in melanoma patients carry on. “We know that the diet impacts the repertoire of microbes that colonize the gut,” said Dr. Harris-Tryon, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the medical center. “The diet of the recipient likely has an impact” on the success of donor FMT.
She also noted that other skin conditions have been linked to a disrupted gut microbiome, such as psoriasis. “Given the safety of FMT in both of these studies, trials of FMT in psoriasis and other systemic skin conditions should be considered,” she said.
According to Dr. Zarour, mounting data from separate studies show that some gut microbiota play a role in adverse events experienced by melanoma patients on immunotherapy. “That is very important, especially with combination therapy,” he said. “There are also microbes involved in resistance to treatment, so the idea would be to identify these microbes.”
Studies raise more questions
In the opinion of Dr. Greiling, results from these two studies raise more questions than they answer. “The big question ... is why and how does FMT work, and how can we make the response better?” she said. “Is there one particular gene product from one microbe that is the key magic ingredient, and we can harness this as a drug? More likely it’s a complex interplay between multiple bacterial species needed to direct the immune response. Is there a group of microbes that is the same from person to person, or is it more complex?”
Then there are pending regulatory concerns. “We know that FMT works for [Clostridioides] difficile colitis but it’s not officially [Food and Drug Administration] approved,” Dr. Greiling said. “The FDA is really struggling with how to approve or regulate using bacteria as a drug. Where is that crossover? That inhibits things moving forward, for good reason. You want to balance safety with live microbes.”
The UPMC clinical trial was supported by Merck. Dr. Zarour disclosed that he is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the James W. and Frances G. McGlothlin Chair in Melanoma Immunotherapy Research at UPMC. The Israeli study was funded by the Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology. Dr. Baruch was supported by the Allen Berg Fund for Excellence in Immuno-Oncology Research. Dr. Greiling and Dr. Harris-Tryon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.