A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.

In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

The study

The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.

Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m².

The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.

Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.

By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.

The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.

Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.

These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.

Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.

The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.

Other research presented at the meeting also showed that the drug was associated with a reduction in suicidal ideation and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.

Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.

FDA delay

Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.

As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”

With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.

Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”

“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
 

‘Impressive’ remission rate

Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”

However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.

He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”

The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.

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

A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.

In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

The study

The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.

Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m².

The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.

Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.

By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.

The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.

Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.

These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.

Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.

The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.

Other research presented at the meeting also showed that the drug was associated with a reduction in suicidal ideation and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.

Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.

FDA delay

Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.

As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”

With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.

Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”

“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
 

‘Impressive’ remission rate

Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”

However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.

He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”

The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.

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

A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.

In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

The study

The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.

Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m².

The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.

Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.

By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.

The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.

Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.

These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.

Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.

The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.

Other research presented at the meeting also showed that the drug was associated with a reduction in suicidal ideation and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.

Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.

FDA delay

Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.

As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”

With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.

Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”

“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
 

‘Impressive’ remission rate

Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”

However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.

He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”

The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.

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

Carcinomas like prostate cancer possess notable bony tropism and can metastasize to the lumbar‐sacral spine and pelvis, draining through the pelvic plexus of the lumbar region. Approximately 90% of patients with advanced prostate cancer develop bone metastasis, the spine being the most common site. Manifestations of metastatic prostate cancer include weight loss and loss of appetite; bone pain, with or without pathologic fracture; and lower-extremity pain and edema. Urinary symptoms are also common. Other physical examination findings are adenopathy, bony tenderness, and lower-extremity edema, as seen in the present case.

Radiologic findings of bone metastases can mimic Paget disease, and even though bone metastases are blastic, lytic lesions may develop and cause pathologic fractures. Such fractures must be distinguished from osteoporotic fractures that can occur after prolonged luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone therapy. Also included in the differential of the present case are lymphomas, which can manifest as pelvic masses and bone lesions and have been reported with prostate cancer. However, considering the patient's history, physical examination, and lab results, bone metastasis is the most likely diagnosis.

Bone imaging should be performed for any patient with suspected bone metastases; specifically, multiparametric MRI outperforms bone scan and targeted x-rays for detection of bone metastases. Because activity in the bone scan may not be observed until 5 years after micrometastasis has occurred, negative bone scan results cannot be used to definitively exclude metastasis. 

The alpha emitter radium-223 is a category 1 option to treat symptomatic bone metastases (but should not be used in patients with visceral metastases). It is not recommended for use in combination with docetaxel or any other systemic therapy but may be used with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), as studies have suggested that the addition of ADT improves progression-free survival in patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer with metastasis. Concomitant use of denosumab or zoledronic acid is also recommended. 

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Carcinomas like prostate cancer possess notable bony tropism and can metastasize to the lumbar‐sacral spine and pelvis, draining through the pelvic plexus of the lumbar region. Approximately 90% of patients with advanced prostate cancer develop bone metastasis, the spine being the most common site. Manifestations of metastatic prostate cancer include weight loss and loss of appetite; bone pain, with or without pathologic fracture; and lower-extremity pain and edema. Urinary symptoms are also common. Other physical examination findings are adenopathy, bony tenderness, and lower-extremity edema, as seen in the present case.

Radiologic findings of bone metastases can mimic Paget disease, and even though bone metastases are blastic, lytic lesions may develop and cause pathologic fractures. Such fractures must be distinguished from osteoporotic fractures that can occur after prolonged luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone therapy. Also included in the differential of the present case are lymphomas, which can manifest as pelvic masses and bone lesions and have been reported with prostate cancer. However, considering the patient's history, physical examination, and lab results, bone metastasis is the most likely diagnosis.

Bone imaging should be performed for any patient with suspected bone metastases; specifically, multiparametric MRI outperforms bone scan and targeted x-rays for detection of bone metastases. Because activity in the bone scan may not be observed until 5 years after micrometastasis has occurred, negative bone scan results cannot be used to definitively exclude metastasis. 

The alpha emitter radium-223 is a category 1 option to treat symptomatic bone metastases (but should not be used in patients with visceral metastases). It is not recommended for use in combination with docetaxel or any other systemic therapy but may be used with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), as studies have suggested that the addition of ADT improves progression-free survival in patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer with metastasis. Concomitant use of denosumab or zoledronic acid is also recommended. 

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Carcinomas like prostate cancer possess notable bony tropism and can metastasize to the lumbar‐sacral spine and pelvis, draining through the pelvic plexus of the lumbar region. Approximately 90% of patients with advanced prostate cancer develop bone metastasis, the spine being the most common site. Manifestations of metastatic prostate cancer include weight loss and loss of appetite; bone pain, with or without pathologic fracture; and lower-extremity pain and edema. Urinary symptoms are also common. Other physical examination findings are adenopathy, bony tenderness, and lower-extremity edema, as seen in the present case.

Radiologic findings of bone metastases can mimic Paget disease, and even though bone metastases are blastic, lytic lesions may develop and cause pathologic fractures. Such fractures must be distinguished from osteoporotic fractures that can occur after prolonged luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone therapy. Also included in the differential of the present case are lymphomas, which can manifest as pelvic masses and bone lesions and have been reported with prostate cancer. However, considering the patient's history, physical examination, and lab results, bone metastasis is the most likely diagnosis.

Bone imaging should be performed for any patient with suspected bone metastases; specifically, multiparametric MRI outperforms bone scan and targeted x-rays for detection of bone metastases. Because activity in the bone scan may not be observed until 5 years after micrometastasis has occurred, negative bone scan results cannot be used to definitively exclude metastasis. 

The alpha emitter radium-223 is a category 1 option to treat symptomatic bone metastases (but should not be used in patients with visceral metastases). It is not recommended for use in combination with docetaxel or any other systemic therapy but may be used with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), as studies have suggested that the addition of ADT improves progression-free survival in patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer with metastasis. Concomitant use of denosumab or zoledronic acid is also recommended. 

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

This patient has the “atopic triad” of allergies, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis around the eyes and on the eyelids often develops in teenage years and adulthood but may also occur in older persons. Occasionally, it can be the only manifestation of atopic dermatitis. The upper eyelids may appear scaly and fissured. The so-called "allergic shiners" (symmetric, dark circles beneath the lower eyelid) and Dennie-Morgan lines (extra skin folds under the lower eyelid) are often present.

The thin skin of the eyelids is particularly sensitive to irritants and allergens and is thus prone to develop dermatitis. Contact with the same trigger may not lead to a rash on other areas of skin. Upper, lower or both eyelids on one or both sides can be affected. The patient may report itching, stinging or burning, and the lids are red and scaly. They may swell. With persistence of the dermatitis, the eyelids become thickened with increased skin markings (lichenification). The eyelid margins may become involved (blepharitis). The appearance is similar, whatever the cause.

The basis of treatment for atopic dermatitis is to provide moisturization for dryness, allay pruritus, and manage inflammation of the eczematous lesions. Conservative initial management of eyelid dermatitis also includes gentle skin care and avoidance of fragrance and other known irritants in personal care, hair, and facial skin care products. Bland, fragrance-free emollients, such as petrolatum, may be applied directly to the eyelids.

Topical corticosteroids are one therapeutic option for eyelid dermatitis. However, only low-potency topical corticosteroids are safe, and only for short-term use, on the eyelids. Typically, they are used twice daily for 2-4 weeks. However, even with low-potency topical corticosteroids, the eyelids remain vulnerable to thinning, even atrophy. Because of these issues, topical calcineurin inhibitors are often the preferred treatment. 

Patients with atopic dermatitis have an increased risk of comorbid eye diseases, including keratitis, conjunctivitis, and keratoconus. A careful clinical examination for associated erythema, crusting, and blepharitis many prompt a referral to an ophthalmologist.

Brian S. Kim, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This patient has the “atopic triad” of allergies, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis around the eyes and on the eyelids often develops in teenage years and adulthood but may also occur in older persons. Occasionally, it can be the only manifestation of atopic dermatitis. The upper eyelids may appear scaly and fissured. The so-called "allergic shiners" (symmetric, dark circles beneath the lower eyelid) and Dennie-Morgan lines (extra skin folds under the lower eyelid) are often present.

The thin skin of the eyelids is particularly sensitive to irritants and allergens and is thus prone to develop dermatitis. Contact with the same trigger may not lead to a rash on other areas of skin. Upper, lower or both eyelids on one or both sides can be affected. The patient may report itching, stinging or burning, and the lids are red and scaly. They may swell. With persistence of the dermatitis, the eyelids become thickened with increased skin markings (lichenification). The eyelid margins may become involved (blepharitis). The appearance is similar, whatever the cause.

The basis of treatment for atopic dermatitis is to provide moisturization for dryness, allay pruritus, and manage inflammation of the eczematous lesions. Conservative initial management of eyelid dermatitis also includes gentle skin care and avoidance of fragrance and other known irritants in personal care, hair, and facial skin care products. Bland, fragrance-free emollients, such as petrolatum, may be applied directly to the eyelids.

Topical corticosteroids are one therapeutic option for eyelid dermatitis. However, only low-potency topical corticosteroids are safe, and only for short-term use, on the eyelids. Typically, they are used twice daily for 2-4 weeks. However, even with low-potency topical corticosteroids, the eyelids remain vulnerable to thinning, even atrophy. Because of these issues, topical calcineurin inhibitors are often the preferred treatment. 

Patients with atopic dermatitis have an increased risk of comorbid eye diseases, including keratitis, conjunctivitis, and keratoconus. A careful clinical examination for associated erythema, crusting, and blepharitis many prompt a referral to an ophthalmologist.

Brian S. Kim, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This patient has the “atopic triad” of allergies, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis around the eyes and on the eyelids often develops in teenage years and adulthood but may also occur in older persons. Occasionally, it can be the only manifestation of atopic dermatitis. The upper eyelids may appear scaly and fissured. The so-called "allergic shiners" (symmetric, dark circles beneath the lower eyelid) and Dennie-Morgan lines (extra skin folds under the lower eyelid) are often present.

The thin skin of the eyelids is particularly sensitive to irritants and allergens and is thus prone to develop dermatitis. Contact with the same trigger may not lead to a rash on other areas of skin. Upper, lower or both eyelids on one or both sides can be affected. The patient may report itching, stinging or burning, and the lids are red and scaly. They may swell. With persistence of the dermatitis, the eyelids become thickened with increased skin markings (lichenification). The eyelid margins may become involved (blepharitis). The appearance is similar, whatever the cause.

The basis of treatment for atopic dermatitis is to provide moisturization for dryness, allay pruritus, and manage inflammation of the eczematous lesions. Conservative initial management of eyelid dermatitis also includes gentle skin care and avoidance of fragrance and other known irritants in personal care, hair, and facial skin care products. Bland, fragrance-free emollients, such as petrolatum, may be applied directly to the eyelids.

Topical corticosteroids are one therapeutic option for eyelid dermatitis. However, only low-potency topical corticosteroids are safe, and only for short-term use, on the eyelids. Typically, they are used twice daily for 2-4 weeks. However, even with low-potency topical corticosteroids, the eyelids remain vulnerable to thinning, even atrophy. Because of these issues, topical calcineurin inhibitors are often the preferred treatment. 

Patients with atopic dermatitis have an increased risk of comorbid eye diseases, including keratitis, conjunctivitis, and keratoconus. A careful clinical examination for associated erythema, crusting, and blepharitis many prompt a referral to an ophthalmologist.

Brian S. Kim, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report 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.

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report 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.

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report 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.

The family of a man who died from a rare and feared complication of head and neck cancer has filed a $34 million lawsuit against the medical center where he was treated, alleging that his death would have been avoided had there been better communication between the surgical oncologist and the treatment team.

The patient was a 49-year-old man who was experiencing chronic pain in his right ear. He saw a local ear, nose, and throat specialist, who could find no apparent cause after conducting a physical exam.

A CT scan revealed a 1.4-cm mass in the right pharyngeal space. A 1.6-cm lymph node in the right retropharyngeal/parapharyngeal carotid space was affected.

The following week, the patient underwent a positron-emission tomography scan and was subsequently referred to a head and neck surgical oncologist.

The surgeon performed a right radical tonsillectomy and pharyngectomy. During the surgery, the patient experienced significant bleeding complications. The surgeon was able to remove the tonsillar mass but could not resect the affected lymph node, owing to its proximity to the carotid artery. The affected lymph node was not removed, and the patient was informed that the problem would be addressed at another time.

Pathology revealed stage III squamous cell carcinoma (T3N0M0) that was HPV/p16 positive.

According to the lawsuit, which was reported in Expert Witness Newsletter, a critical error occurred.

The surgical oncologist apparently did not clearly communicate the situation to the rest of the clinicians involved in the patient’s care. The patient was treated as if the entire cancer had been surgically resected. He never underwent follow-up surgery to address the enlarged lymph node.

Because the care team believed that the patient had undergone a complete surgical resection, follow-up treatment consisted of radiotherapy without concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient underwent radiotherapy to a dose of 60 Gy over 30 treatment days.

About 5 months later, the patient once again presented with ear pain on the right side and difficulty speaking. Imaging showed that there was recurrence of a mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space. Biopsy results indicated recurrent/progressive squamous cell carcinoma. The patient underwent a second round of radiotherapy. This time, he received concurrent chemotherapy.

Four months later, the patient presented to the emergency department complaining of episodes of syncope. Imaging revealed that the mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space had increased in size, causing carotid stenosis. The patient was hospitalized for 4 days and was treated with steroids. The day after his discharge, he died at home.
 

Carotid blowout syndrome due to negligence

An autopsy was performed, and the cause of death was determined to be an acute massive bleed secondary to perforation of the right artery, which was “encased by a partially necrotic poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma.” This is known as carotid blowout syndrome.

After his death, the patient’s family contacted an attorney, who hired several expert witnesses to review the case. The alleged negligence by the head and neck oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to appropriately assess the patient’s neck anatomy, and the entire tumor was not surgically removed.
• Frank disease tissue was left behind, and the disease subsequently progressed.
• The surgery was never completed; the cancer progressed and ultimately took the patient’s life.
• There was a failure to communicate the fact that the cancer had not been completely resected.

The alleged negligence by the radiation oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to realize that the tumor had not been completely resected.
• The patient was given a suboptimal radiation dose of 60 Gy, which would have been appropriate only had the tumor been completely resected.
• There was a failure to give a radiation dose of 70 Gy (ie, the appropriate dose for remaining tumor).

The medical oncologist was alleged to have been negligent because chemotherapy was not given when indicated.
 

Very high stakes

None of the treating physicians were named in the lawsuit. Only the medical center where the treatment was given was named. The center is affiliated with an Ivy League university.

The patient was an extremely wealthy man who had worked as an insurance executive and investor. His premature death resulted in the loss of a massive amount of earnings, and the plaintiffs asked for a sum of $34 million as compensation. Because doctors do not carry insurance sufficient to cover that amount and generally do not have personal assets of that amount, the plaintiff targeted the hospital.

“The plaintiff knows that the physicians will never be able to pay an 8-figure settlement, so instead they go after the hospital itself,” says the newsletter. “The physicians simply become pawns in a protracted legal game.”

The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2021 for an undisclosed amount.

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

The family of a man who died from a rare and feared complication of head and neck cancer has filed a $34 million lawsuit against the medical center where he was treated, alleging that his death would have been avoided had there been better communication between the surgical oncologist and the treatment team.

The patient was a 49-year-old man who was experiencing chronic pain in his right ear. He saw a local ear, nose, and throat specialist, who could find no apparent cause after conducting a physical exam.

A CT scan revealed a 1.4-cm mass in the right pharyngeal space. A 1.6-cm lymph node in the right retropharyngeal/parapharyngeal carotid space was affected.

The following week, the patient underwent a positron-emission tomography scan and was subsequently referred to a head and neck surgical oncologist.

The surgeon performed a right radical tonsillectomy and pharyngectomy. During the surgery, the patient experienced significant bleeding complications. The surgeon was able to remove the tonsillar mass but could not resect the affected lymph node, owing to its proximity to the carotid artery. The affected lymph node was not removed, and the patient was informed that the problem would be addressed at another time.

Pathology revealed stage III squamous cell carcinoma (T3N0M0) that was HPV/p16 positive.

According to the lawsuit, which was reported in Expert Witness Newsletter, a critical error occurred.

The surgical oncologist apparently did not clearly communicate the situation to the rest of the clinicians involved in the patient’s care. The patient was treated as if the entire cancer had been surgically resected. He never underwent follow-up surgery to address the enlarged lymph node.

Because the care team believed that the patient had undergone a complete surgical resection, follow-up treatment consisted of radiotherapy without concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient underwent radiotherapy to a dose of 60 Gy over 30 treatment days.

About 5 months later, the patient once again presented with ear pain on the right side and difficulty speaking. Imaging showed that there was recurrence of a mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space. Biopsy results indicated recurrent/progressive squamous cell carcinoma. The patient underwent a second round of radiotherapy. This time, he received concurrent chemotherapy.

Four months later, the patient presented to the emergency department complaining of episodes of syncope. Imaging revealed that the mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space had increased in size, causing carotid stenosis. The patient was hospitalized for 4 days and was treated with steroids. The day after his discharge, he died at home.
 

Carotid blowout syndrome due to negligence

An autopsy was performed, and the cause of death was determined to be an acute massive bleed secondary to perforation of the right artery, which was “encased by a partially necrotic poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma.” This is known as carotid blowout syndrome.

After his death, the patient’s family contacted an attorney, who hired several expert witnesses to review the case. The alleged negligence by the head and neck oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to appropriately assess the patient’s neck anatomy, and the entire tumor was not surgically removed.
• Frank disease tissue was left behind, and the disease subsequently progressed.
• The surgery was never completed; the cancer progressed and ultimately took the patient’s life.
• There was a failure to communicate the fact that the cancer had not been completely resected.

The alleged negligence by the radiation oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to realize that the tumor had not been completely resected.
• The patient was given a suboptimal radiation dose of 60 Gy, which would have been appropriate only had the tumor been completely resected.
• There was a failure to give a radiation dose of 70 Gy (ie, the appropriate dose for remaining tumor).

The medical oncologist was alleged to have been negligent because chemotherapy was not given when indicated.
 

Very high stakes

None of the treating physicians were named in the lawsuit. Only the medical center where the treatment was given was named. The center is affiliated with an Ivy League university.

The patient was an extremely wealthy man who had worked as an insurance executive and investor. His premature death resulted in the loss of a massive amount of earnings, and the plaintiffs asked for a sum of $34 million as compensation. Because doctors do not carry insurance sufficient to cover that amount and generally do not have personal assets of that amount, the plaintiff targeted the hospital.

“The plaintiff knows that the physicians will never be able to pay an 8-figure settlement, so instead they go after the hospital itself,” says the newsletter. “The physicians simply become pawns in a protracted legal game.”

The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2021 for an undisclosed amount.

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

The family of a man who died from a rare and feared complication of head and neck cancer has filed a $34 million lawsuit against the medical center where he was treated, alleging that his death would have been avoided had there been better communication between the surgical oncologist and the treatment team.

The patient was a 49-year-old man who was experiencing chronic pain in his right ear. He saw a local ear, nose, and throat specialist, who could find no apparent cause after conducting a physical exam.

A CT scan revealed a 1.4-cm mass in the right pharyngeal space. A 1.6-cm lymph node in the right retropharyngeal/parapharyngeal carotid space was affected.

The following week, the patient underwent a positron-emission tomography scan and was subsequently referred to a head and neck surgical oncologist.

The surgeon performed a right radical tonsillectomy and pharyngectomy. During the surgery, the patient experienced significant bleeding complications. The surgeon was able to remove the tonsillar mass but could not resect the affected lymph node, owing to its proximity to the carotid artery. The affected lymph node was not removed, and the patient was informed that the problem would be addressed at another time.

Pathology revealed stage III squamous cell carcinoma (T3N0M0) that was HPV/p16 positive.

According to the lawsuit, which was reported in Expert Witness Newsletter, a critical error occurred.

The surgical oncologist apparently did not clearly communicate the situation to the rest of the clinicians involved in the patient’s care. The patient was treated as if the entire cancer had been surgically resected. He never underwent follow-up surgery to address the enlarged lymph node.

Because the care team believed that the patient had undergone a complete surgical resection, follow-up treatment consisted of radiotherapy without concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient underwent radiotherapy to a dose of 60 Gy over 30 treatment days.

About 5 months later, the patient once again presented with ear pain on the right side and difficulty speaking. Imaging showed that there was recurrence of a mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space. Biopsy results indicated recurrent/progressive squamous cell carcinoma. The patient underwent a second round of radiotherapy. This time, he received concurrent chemotherapy.

Four months later, the patient presented to the emergency department complaining of episodes of syncope. Imaging revealed that the mass in his right parapharyngeal carotid space had increased in size, causing carotid stenosis. The patient was hospitalized for 4 days and was treated with steroids. The day after his discharge, he died at home.
 

Carotid blowout syndrome due to negligence

An autopsy was performed, and the cause of death was determined to be an acute massive bleed secondary to perforation of the right artery, which was “encased by a partially necrotic poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma.” This is known as carotid blowout syndrome.

After his death, the patient’s family contacted an attorney, who hired several expert witnesses to review the case. The alleged negligence by the head and neck oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to appropriately assess the patient’s neck anatomy, and the entire tumor was not surgically removed.
• Frank disease tissue was left behind, and the disease subsequently progressed.
• The surgery was never completed; the cancer progressed and ultimately took the patient’s life.
• There was a failure to communicate the fact that the cancer had not been completely resected.

The alleged negligence by the radiation oncologist was described as follows:

• There was a failure to realize that the tumor had not been completely resected.
• The patient was given a suboptimal radiation dose of 60 Gy, which would have been appropriate only had the tumor been completely resected.
• There was a failure to give a radiation dose of 70 Gy (ie, the appropriate dose for remaining tumor).

The medical oncologist was alleged to have been negligent because chemotherapy was not given when indicated.
 

Very high stakes

None of the treating physicians were named in the lawsuit. Only the medical center where the treatment was given was named. The center is affiliated with an Ivy League university.

The patient was an extremely wealthy man who had worked as an insurance executive and investor. His premature death resulted in the loss of a massive amount of earnings, and the plaintiffs asked for a sum of $34 million as compensation. Because doctors do not carry insurance sufficient to cover that amount and generally do not have personal assets of that amount, the plaintiff targeted the hospital.

“The plaintiff knows that the physicians will never be able to pay an 8-figure settlement, so instead they go after the hospital itself,” says the newsletter. “The physicians simply become pawns in a protracted legal game.”

The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2021 for an undisclosed amount.

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