User login
IMvigor130: A treasure trove of data for urothelial carcinoma
A second interim overall survival (OS) analysis suggested that atezolizumab monotherapy provides a clinical benefit as first-line treatment for mUC patients with PD-L1–expressing immune cells representing at least 5% of the tumor area (IC2/3), including patients who are cisplatin ineligible.
The analysis also suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy produces similar OS results as chemotherapy plus placebo, but patients receiving atezolizumab may do better with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based chemotherapy.
These results were reported in two presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1.
Current guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology recommend atezolizumab monotherapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC and PD-L1 IC2/3.
The ongoing phase 3 IMvigor130 trial was designed to compare atezolizumab plus gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy, atezolizumab monotherapy, and placebo plus chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy included either cisplatin or carboplatin, per investigator choice.
Coprimary endpoints for IMvigor130 were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy. The hierarchical study design dictated that OS would only be assessed for the comparison of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy in the overall and PD-L1 IC2/3 populations if there was statistical improvement in OS for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm over the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST 1.1), duration of response (DOR) for all patients, and PFS for the comparison between atezolizumab monotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses were performed on cisplatin-ineligible patients by PD-L1 status.
At the time of the primary analysis, an OS benefit for atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy was not observed. Therefore, the OS benefit of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was not assessed. However, a trend toward improved OS was noted with atezolizumab for PD-L1 IC2/3 patients, including cisplatin-ineligible patients.
Atezolizumab vs. placebo-chemo
Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, presented the second interim analysis of OS with atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT040).
The median follow-up was 14.9 months for atezolizumab monotherapy (n = 360) and 11.8 months for placebo-chemotherapy (n = 359). The median OS was 15.2 months and 13.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.19). There was no apparent OS benefit of atezolizumab for any clinically selected subgroup.
The ORR was 23.4% for atezolizumab monotherapy and 44.1% for placebo-chemotherapy. The median DOR was more than 3.5 times longer for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 29.6 months and 8.1 months, respectively.
Although there was no formal statistical comparison, exploratory subgroup analyses demonstrated that the median OS for the PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher in the atezolizumab monotherapy arm than in the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 27.5 months and 16.7 months, respectively.
Similarly, the median OS for cisplatin-ineligible PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 18.6 months and 10.0 months, respectively.
In terms of safety, atezolizumab monotherapy compared favorably with placebo plus chemotherapy. There were similar numbers of grade 3/4 adverse events and comparable adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment in both arms.
The atezolizumab monotherapy arm had fewer adverse events leading to withdrawal from any treatment, when compared with the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 7% and 34%, respectively. Two patients in the atezolizumab arm and one in the placebo-chemotherapy died of treatment-related causes.
Atezolizumab-chemo vs. placebo-chemo
Matthew D. Galsky, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented the second interim OS comparison of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT042).
The primary analysis had shown a statistically significant improvement in PFS for patients on atezolizumab-chemotherapy, in comparison with placebo-chemotherapy, with encouraging OS improvement, but the boundary for declaring significance for the OS endpoint was not crossed (Lancet. 2020 May 16;395[10236]:1547-1557).
Because IMvigor130 included both patients who received cisplatin and patients who investigators deemed cisplatin ineligible, the second interim analysis included an exploratory analysis of whether there was a difference in outcome between patients who received or did not receive cisplatin.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, the median OS was not significantly different in the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm (n = 451) and the placebo-chemotherapy arm (n = 400) – 16.1 months and 13.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = .026).
There were no clinically or pathologically defined subgroups that experienced an OS benefit from atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy.
As for subsequent nonprotocol therapy, 24% of the placebo-chemotherapy arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor at progression, as did 7% of the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm. There was no difference in receipt of an immune checkpoint inhibitor post progression among patients treated with cisplatin versus carboplatin.
The benefit of combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy appeared more substantial with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based treatment. With cisplatin, the median OS was 21.6 months for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and 14.6 months for the placebo-chemotherapy arm. With carboplatin, the median OS was 14.3 months and 13.0 months, respectively.
PD-L1 status was prognostic for patients who received cisplatin, with lower OS being observed for patients with PD-L1 IC0/1 status and higher OS observed for patients with PD-L1 IC2/3 status. Atezolizumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy appeared superior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in both PD-L1–low and –high groups.
Atezolizumab did not seem to benefit patients who were treated with carboplatin, and PD-L1 status did not seem to influence OS among the carboplatin-treated patients.
Although similar ORR results were seen with cisplatin and carboplatin, there appeared to be a longer median DOR among cisplatin-treated patients who received atezolizumab than among those who did not – 13.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively.
No such benefit from atezolizumab was seen in carboplatin-treated patients. The median DOR was 8.1 months among patients who received atezolizumab and 7.1 months among those who did not.
The overall safety profile for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with prior reports of the combination. Treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events were similar on the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
The present and future
The investigators who presented the second interim analysis for OS of the IMvigor130 trial were appropriately modest in their conclusions. After all, the prespecified boundary for significant improvement in OS for the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was not crossed. No change in guideline-based clinical practice would be appropriate at the present time.
The various exploratory analyses are hypothesis generating and invite potential mechanistic explanations. However, given the nonrandom allocation of patients to cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, unrecognized variables may have influenced any appearance of a difference in OS between the regimens.
In IMvigor130, treatment was given until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. It is uncertain whether the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network category 1 recommendation of chemotherapy induction followed by immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy will prove superior to the IMvigor130 strategy.
Clearly – and concordant with current treatment guidelines – atezolizumab monotherapy can benefit some patients, though the response rate for atezolizumab monotherapy was lower than for chemotherapy (23.4% vs. 44.1%).
As noted by the session chair, Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, the OS curves were initially superior for chemotherapy over atezolizumab. However, the apparent early OS benefit for chemotherapy dissipated over time and, among responders to atezolizumab, response duration was considerably longer than for chemotherapy.
IMvigor130 will ultimately have a final OS analysis to clarify the relative benefits of the various treatment strategies. Fortunately, this large phase 3 study will yield a treasure trove of data to inform future research and build on the advances of recent years for patients with advanced urothelial cancer.
IMvigor130 is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Davis, Dr. Galsky, and Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Hoffmann-La Roche and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
A second interim overall survival (OS) analysis suggested that atezolizumab monotherapy provides a clinical benefit as first-line treatment for mUC patients with PD-L1–expressing immune cells representing at least 5% of the tumor area (IC2/3), including patients who are cisplatin ineligible.
The analysis also suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy produces similar OS results as chemotherapy plus placebo, but patients receiving atezolizumab may do better with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based chemotherapy.
These results were reported in two presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1.
Current guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology recommend atezolizumab monotherapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC and PD-L1 IC2/3.
The ongoing phase 3 IMvigor130 trial was designed to compare atezolizumab plus gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy, atezolizumab monotherapy, and placebo plus chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy included either cisplatin or carboplatin, per investigator choice.
Coprimary endpoints for IMvigor130 were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy. The hierarchical study design dictated that OS would only be assessed for the comparison of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy in the overall and PD-L1 IC2/3 populations if there was statistical improvement in OS for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm over the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST 1.1), duration of response (DOR) for all patients, and PFS for the comparison between atezolizumab monotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses were performed on cisplatin-ineligible patients by PD-L1 status.
At the time of the primary analysis, an OS benefit for atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy was not observed. Therefore, the OS benefit of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was not assessed. However, a trend toward improved OS was noted with atezolizumab for PD-L1 IC2/3 patients, including cisplatin-ineligible patients.
Atezolizumab vs. placebo-chemo
Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, presented the second interim analysis of OS with atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT040).
The median follow-up was 14.9 months for atezolizumab monotherapy (n = 360) and 11.8 months for placebo-chemotherapy (n = 359). The median OS was 15.2 months and 13.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.19). There was no apparent OS benefit of atezolizumab for any clinically selected subgroup.
The ORR was 23.4% for atezolizumab monotherapy and 44.1% for placebo-chemotherapy. The median DOR was more than 3.5 times longer for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 29.6 months and 8.1 months, respectively.
Although there was no formal statistical comparison, exploratory subgroup analyses demonstrated that the median OS for the PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher in the atezolizumab monotherapy arm than in the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 27.5 months and 16.7 months, respectively.
Similarly, the median OS for cisplatin-ineligible PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 18.6 months and 10.0 months, respectively.
In terms of safety, atezolizumab monotherapy compared favorably with placebo plus chemotherapy. There were similar numbers of grade 3/4 adverse events and comparable adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment in both arms.
The atezolizumab monotherapy arm had fewer adverse events leading to withdrawal from any treatment, when compared with the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 7% and 34%, respectively. Two patients in the atezolizumab arm and one in the placebo-chemotherapy died of treatment-related causes.
Atezolizumab-chemo vs. placebo-chemo
Matthew D. Galsky, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented the second interim OS comparison of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT042).
The primary analysis had shown a statistically significant improvement in PFS for patients on atezolizumab-chemotherapy, in comparison with placebo-chemotherapy, with encouraging OS improvement, but the boundary for declaring significance for the OS endpoint was not crossed (Lancet. 2020 May 16;395[10236]:1547-1557).
Because IMvigor130 included both patients who received cisplatin and patients who investigators deemed cisplatin ineligible, the second interim analysis included an exploratory analysis of whether there was a difference in outcome between patients who received or did not receive cisplatin.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, the median OS was not significantly different in the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm (n = 451) and the placebo-chemotherapy arm (n = 400) – 16.1 months and 13.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = .026).
There were no clinically or pathologically defined subgroups that experienced an OS benefit from atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy.
As for subsequent nonprotocol therapy, 24% of the placebo-chemotherapy arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor at progression, as did 7% of the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm. There was no difference in receipt of an immune checkpoint inhibitor post progression among patients treated with cisplatin versus carboplatin.
The benefit of combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy appeared more substantial with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based treatment. With cisplatin, the median OS was 21.6 months for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and 14.6 months for the placebo-chemotherapy arm. With carboplatin, the median OS was 14.3 months and 13.0 months, respectively.
PD-L1 status was prognostic for patients who received cisplatin, with lower OS being observed for patients with PD-L1 IC0/1 status and higher OS observed for patients with PD-L1 IC2/3 status. Atezolizumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy appeared superior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in both PD-L1–low and –high groups.
Atezolizumab did not seem to benefit patients who were treated with carboplatin, and PD-L1 status did not seem to influence OS among the carboplatin-treated patients.
Although similar ORR results were seen with cisplatin and carboplatin, there appeared to be a longer median DOR among cisplatin-treated patients who received atezolizumab than among those who did not – 13.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively.
No such benefit from atezolizumab was seen in carboplatin-treated patients. The median DOR was 8.1 months among patients who received atezolizumab and 7.1 months among those who did not.
The overall safety profile for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with prior reports of the combination. Treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events were similar on the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
The present and future
The investigators who presented the second interim analysis for OS of the IMvigor130 trial were appropriately modest in their conclusions. After all, the prespecified boundary for significant improvement in OS for the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was not crossed. No change in guideline-based clinical practice would be appropriate at the present time.
The various exploratory analyses are hypothesis generating and invite potential mechanistic explanations. However, given the nonrandom allocation of patients to cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, unrecognized variables may have influenced any appearance of a difference in OS between the regimens.
In IMvigor130, treatment was given until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. It is uncertain whether the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network category 1 recommendation of chemotherapy induction followed by immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy will prove superior to the IMvigor130 strategy.
Clearly – and concordant with current treatment guidelines – atezolizumab monotherapy can benefit some patients, though the response rate for atezolizumab monotherapy was lower than for chemotherapy (23.4% vs. 44.1%).
As noted by the session chair, Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, the OS curves were initially superior for chemotherapy over atezolizumab. However, the apparent early OS benefit for chemotherapy dissipated over time and, among responders to atezolizumab, response duration was considerably longer than for chemotherapy.
IMvigor130 will ultimately have a final OS analysis to clarify the relative benefits of the various treatment strategies. Fortunately, this large phase 3 study will yield a treasure trove of data to inform future research and build on the advances of recent years for patients with advanced urothelial cancer.
IMvigor130 is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Davis, Dr. Galsky, and Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Hoffmann-La Roche and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
A second interim overall survival (OS) analysis suggested that atezolizumab monotherapy provides a clinical benefit as first-line treatment for mUC patients with PD-L1–expressing immune cells representing at least 5% of the tumor area (IC2/3), including patients who are cisplatin ineligible.
The analysis also suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy produces similar OS results as chemotherapy plus placebo, but patients receiving atezolizumab may do better with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based chemotherapy.
These results were reported in two presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1.
Current guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology recommend atezolizumab monotherapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC and PD-L1 IC2/3.
The ongoing phase 3 IMvigor130 trial was designed to compare atezolizumab plus gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy, atezolizumab monotherapy, and placebo plus chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy included either cisplatin or carboplatin, per investigator choice.
Coprimary endpoints for IMvigor130 were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy. The hierarchical study design dictated that OS would only be assessed for the comparison of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy in the overall and PD-L1 IC2/3 populations if there was statistical improvement in OS for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm over the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST 1.1), duration of response (DOR) for all patients, and PFS for the comparison between atezolizumab monotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses were performed on cisplatin-ineligible patients by PD-L1 status.
At the time of the primary analysis, an OS benefit for atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy was not observed. Therefore, the OS benefit of atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was not assessed. However, a trend toward improved OS was noted with atezolizumab for PD-L1 IC2/3 patients, including cisplatin-ineligible patients.
Atezolizumab vs. placebo-chemo
Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, presented the second interim analysis of OS with atezolizumab monotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT040).
The median follow-up was 14.9 months for atezolizumab monotherapy (n = 360) and 11.8 months for placebo-chemotherapy (n = 359). The median OS was 15.2 months and 13.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.19). There was no apparent OS benefit of atezolizumab for any clinically selected subgroup.
The ORR was 23.4% for atezolizumab monotherapy and 44.1% for placebo-chemotherapy. The median DOR was more than 3.5 times longer for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 29.6 months and 8.1 months, respectively.
Although there was no formal statistical comparison, exploratory subgroup analyses demonstrated that the median OS for the PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher in the atezolizumab monotherapy arm than in the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 27.5 months and 16.7 months, respectively.
Similarly, the median OS for cisplatin-ineligible PD-L1 IC2/3 patients appeared higher for atezolizumab monotherapy than for placebo-chemotherapy – 18.6 months and 10.0 months, respectively.
In terms of safety, atezolizumab monotherapy compared favorably with placebo plus chemotherapy. There were similar numbers of grade 3/4 adverse events and comparable adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment in both arms.
The atezolizumab monotherapy arm had fewer adverse events leading to withdrawal from any treatment, when compared with the placebo-chemotherapy arm – 7% and 34%, respectively. Two patients in the atezolizumab arm and one in the placebo-chemotherapy died of treatment-related causes.
Atezolizumab-chemo vs. placebo-chemo
Matthew D. Galsky, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented the second interim OS comparison of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy (Abstract CT042).
The primary analysis had shown a statistically significant improvement in PFS for patients on atezolizumab-chemotherapy, in comparison with placebo-chemotherapy, with encouraging OS improvement, but the boundary for declaring significance for the OS endpoint was not crossed (Lancet. 2020 May 16;395[10236]:1547-1557).
Because IMvigor130 included both patients who received cisplatin and patients who investigators deemed cisplatin ineligible, the second interim analysis included an exploratory analysis of whether there was a difference in outcome between patients who received or did not receive cisplatin.
At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, the median OS was not significantly different in the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm (n = 451) and the placebo-chemotherapy arm (n = 400) – 16.1 months and 13.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = .026).
There were no clinically or pathologically defined subgroups that experienced an OS benefit from atezolizumab-chemotherapy over placebo-chemotherapy.
As for subsequent nonprotocol therapy, 24% of the placebo-chemotherapy arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor at progression, as did 7% of the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm. There was no difference in receipt of an immune checkpoint inhibitor post progression among patients treated with cisplatin versus carboplatin.
The benefit of combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy appeared more substantial with cisplatin-based chemotherapy than with carboplatin-based treatment. With cisplatin, the median OS was 21.6 months for the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and 14.6 months for the placebo-chemotherapy arm. With carboplatin, the median OS was 14.3 months and 13.0 months, respectively.
PD-L1 status was prognostic for patients who received cisplatin, with lower OS being observed for patients with PD-L1 IC0/1 status and higher OS observed for patients with PD-L1 IC2/3 status. Atezolizumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy appeared superior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in both PD-L1–low and –high groups.
Atezolizumab did not seem to benefit patients who were treated with carboplatin, and PD-L1 status did not seem to influence OS among the carboplatin-treated patients.
Although similar ORR results were seen with cisplatin and carboplatin, there appeared to be a longer median DOR among cisplatin-treated patients who received atezolizumab than among those who did not – 13.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively.
No such benefit from atezolizumab was seen in carboplatin-treated patients. The median DOR was 8.1 months among patients who received atezolizumab and 7.1 months among those who did not.
The overall safety profile for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with prior reports of the combination. Treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events were similar on the atezolizumab-chemotherapy arm and the placebo-chemotherapy arm.
The present and future
The investigators who presented the second interim analysis for OS of the IMvigor130 trial were appropriately modest in their conclusions. After all, the prespecified boundary for significant improvement in OS for the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was not crossed. No change in guideline-based clinical practice would be appropriate at the present time.
The various exploratory analyses are hypothesis generating and invite potential mechanistic explanations. However, given the nonrandom allocation of patients to cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, unrecognized variables may have influenced any appearance of a difference in OS between the regimens.
In IMvigor130, treatment was given until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. It is uncertain whether the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network category 1 recommendation of chemotherapy induction followed by immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy will prove superior to the IMvigor130 strategy.
Clearly – and concordant with current treatment guidelines – atezolizumab monotherapy can benefit some patients, though the response rate for atezolizumab monotherapy was lower than for chemotherapy (23.4% vs. 44.1%).
As noted by the session chair, Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, the OS curves were initially superior for chemotherapy over atezolizumab. However, the apparent early OS benefit for chemotherapy dissipated over time and, among responders to atezolizumab, response duration was considerably longer than for chemotherapy.
IMvigor130 will ultimately have a final OS analysis to clarify the relative benefits of the various treatment strategies. Fortunately, this large phase 3 study will yield a treasure trove of data to inform future research and build on the advances of recent years for patients with advanced urothelial cancer.
IMvigor130 is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Davis, Dr. Galsky, and Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Hoffmann-La Roche and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
AACR 2021
Bimekizumab tops adalimumab for plaque psoriasis
The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.
In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.
The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.
“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.
Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.
The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).
Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.
At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).
About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.
The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.
The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.
“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.
One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.
The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.
Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.
Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.
In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.
The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.
“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.
Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.
The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).
Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.
At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).
About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.
The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.
The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.
“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.
One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.
The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.
Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.
Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.
In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.
The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.
“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.
Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.
The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).
Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.
At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).
About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.
The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.
The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.
“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.
One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.
The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.
Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.
Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nurses or physicians: Who are at highest suicide risk?
Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.
Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.
“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Focus on physicians
Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.
Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.
For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).
Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.
An important area of focus was method of suicide.
“ and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
Enormous job strain
The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.
Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.
Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).
The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).
“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.
In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).
Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.
Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.
Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.
“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.
Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
Benchmark research
Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.
One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.
Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”
She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”
Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”
The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.
No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.
Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.
“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Focus on physicians
Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.
Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.
For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).
Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.
An important area of focus was method of suicide.
“ and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
Enormous job strain
The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.
Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.
Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).
The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).
“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.
In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).
Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.
Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.
Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.
“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.
Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
Benchmark research
Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.
One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.
Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”
She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”
Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”
The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.
No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.
Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.
“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
Focus on physicians
Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.
Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.
For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).
Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.
An important area of focus was method of suicide.
“ and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
Enormous job strain
The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.
Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.
Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).
The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).
“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.
In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).
Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.
Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.
Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.
“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.
Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
Benchmark research
Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.
One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.
Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”
She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”
Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”
The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.
No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How about contraceptives for men?
With the introduction of new technology to vaccinate the world with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, I considered other health conditions that could benefit from new modalities. Unplanned pregnancies are a public health crisis, yet the burden falls solely on women to solve, burdening them with contraceptive practices to prevent unplanned pregnancy. With the insurrection of Row v. Wade and the new bills being pushed through states that are limiting abortion, perhaps the time has come for males to accept the responsibility for contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy. The methods that currently exist for males are condoms and vasectomy. Other options are being explored – both nonhormonal and reversible contraception including daily pills, gels, and long-acting injections.
The pill for men has been under preliminary trials with promising results. This contraceptive pill contains dimethandrolone undecanoate, which is an androgen anabolic steroid progesterone once-daily pill that suppresses FSH and LH, causing a decrease in the production of testosterone and consequently sperm production.1 (Long, Lee, & Blithe, 2019). This pill is in long-term trials to determine the efficacy and side effects, including the impact on libido, liver, and kidney disease.
The injectable male contraceptive in trials now includes two different options. The first was a long-acting progestin, testosterone, and androgen combination. The male participants received an intramuscular injection every 8 weeks. Although the results of the study were promising – sperm production was effectively reduced, the side effects were too severe for participants to continue use. Side effects much like those of the female Depo-Provera injections included acne and mood disorders. Men experienced erectile dysfunction while at the same time having an increase in sex drive.2 (Em, 2018).
Recently, researchers in India have studied a nonhormonal injectable with promising outcomes. It prevented pregnancy in more than 97% of participants. This injectable polymer gel is placed into the male’s vas deferens to block sperm from leaving the body. This product inactivates sperm, essentially creating temporary sterilization for men. The benefit of this product, called RISUG (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance), is a single injection that can be effective for 13 years. It can be reversed earlier if needed by injecting a dissolving gel into the male’s vas deferens.1,2 In the United States, there is an identical product called Vasalgel – a polymer injected into the vas deferens – also being studied for temporary infertility.
Another synthetic implanted androgen product being studied is 7 alpha-methyl-19-nortestosterone (MENT), a synthetic steroid that resembles testosterone but does not convert into testosterone and, consequently, does not stimulate prostate growth. It is administered via two subdermal implants and is effective for 12 months. The first subdermal implant releases the synthetic androgen, which is more potent than testosterone, and the other emits LH-releasing hormone.3 Studies demonstrate that MENT suppresses sperm production.1
Finally, studies are underway using transdermal gel applications to suppress sperm concentrations. The daily gel is absorbed through the skin after application to two different areas of the man’s body: the shoulders and upper arms. The daily application of the progestin product, Nestorone, and testosterone gel has been found to reduce sperm concentrations to < 1 x 106/mL. Studies measured gonadal concentrations after 4 weeks.1 Users were happy with the use of a topical gel, with minimal side effects such as lower libido, weight gain, and changes in cholesterol, yet inconsistent use of the product resulted in lower than anticipated results.4
Male contraceptive options are long overdue to dramatically reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies and the burden of contraception placed on women. Getting these products to market will be half the battle – getting men to commit to using these options and women to trust male compliance may further impede acceptance. Men have not had to carry the burden and economics of single parenting. Men interested in casual sex may now need to accept more responsibility for unplanned pregnancy and be proactive with prevention, particularly as abortion laws are being challenged.
Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of pediatrics division of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the editorial board for Pediatric News and has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Long J E et al. Clin Chem. 2019;65(1):153-60.
2. Male birth control: Current options and new breakthroughs, SingleCare: Health Education. Aug. 6, 2018.
3. Sundaram K et al. Ann Med. 1993;25(2):199-205.
4. Anawalt BD et al. Andrology. 2019;7(6):878-87.
With the introduction of new technology to vaccinate the world with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, I considered other health conditions that could benefit from new modalities. Unplanned pregnancies are a public health crisis, yet the burden falls solely on women to solve, burdening them with contraceptive practices to prevent unplanned pregnancy. With the insurrection of Row v. Wade and the new bills being pushed through states that are limiting abortion, perhaps the time has come for males to accept the responsibility for contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy. The methods that currently exist for males are condoms and vasectomy. Other options are being explored – both nonhormonal and reversible contraception including daily pills, gels, and long-acting injections.
The pill for men has been under preliminary trials with promising results. This contraceptive pill contains dimethandrolone undecanoate, which is an androgen anabolic steroid progesterone once-daily pill that suppresses FSH and LH, causing a decrease in the production of testosterone and consequently sperm production.1 (Long, Lee, & Blithe, 2019). This pill is in long-term trials to determine the efficacy and side effects, including the impact on libido, liver, and kidney disease.
The injectable male contraceptive in trials now includes two different options. The first was a long-acting progestin, testosterone, and androgen combination. The male participants received an intramuscular injection every 8 weeks. Although the results of the study were promising – sperm production was effectively reduced, the side effects were too severe for participants to continue use. Side effects much like those of the female Depo-Provera injections included acne and mood disorders. Men experienced erectile dysfunction while at the same time having an increase in sex drive.2 (Em, 2018).
Recently, researchers in India have studied a nonhormonal injectable with promising outcomes. It prevented pregnancy in more than 97% of participants. This injectable polymer gel is placed into the male’s vas deferens to block sperm from leaving the body. This product inactivates sperm, essentially creating temporary sterilization for men. The benefit of this product, called RISUG (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance), is a single injection that can be effective for 13 years. It can be reversed earlier if needed by injecting a dissolving gel into the male’s vas deferens.1,2 In the United States, there is an identical product called Vasalgel – a polymer injected into the vas deferens – also being studied for temporary infertility.
Another synthetic implanted androgen product being studied is 7 alpha-methyl-19-nortestosterone (MENT), a synthetic steroid that resembles testosterone but does not convert into testosterone and, consequently, does not stimulate prostate growth. It is administered via two subdermal implants and is effective for 12 months. The first subdermal implant releases the synthetic androgen, which is more potent than testosterone, and the other emits LH-releasing hormone.3 Studies demonstrate that MENT suppresses sperm production.1
Finally, studies are underway using transdermal gel applications to suppress sperm concentrations. The daily gel is absorbed through the skin after application to two different areas of the man’s body: the shoulders and upper arms. The daily application of the progestin product, Nestorone, and testosterone gel has been found to reduce sperm concentrations to < 1 x 106/mL. Studies measured gonadal concentrations after 4 weeks.1 Users were happy with the use of a topical gel, with minimal side effects such as lower libido, weight gain, and changes in cholesterol, yet inconsistent use of the product resulted in lower than anticipated results.4
Male contraceptive options are long overdue to dramatically reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies and the burden of contraception placed on women. Getting these products to market will be half the battle – getting men to commit to using these options and women to trust male compliance may further impede acceptance. Men have not had to carry the burden and economics of single parenting. Men interested in casual sex may now need to accept more responsibility for unplanned pregnancy and be proactive with prevention, particularly as abortion laws are being challenged.
Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of pediatrics division of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the editorial board for Pediatric News and has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Long J E et al. Clin Chem. 2019;65(1):153-60.
2. Male birth control: Current options and new breakthroughs, SingleCare: Health Education. Aug. 6, 2018.
3. Sundaram K et al. Ann Med. 1993;25(2):199-205.
4. Anawalt BD et al. Andrology. 2019;7(6):878-87.
With the introduction of new technology to vaccinate the world with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, I considered other health conditions that could benefit from new modalities. Unplanned pregnancies are a public health crisis, yet the burden falls solely on women to solve, burdening them with contraceptive practices to prevent unplanned pregnancy. With the insurrection of Row v. Wade and the new bills being pushed through states that are limiting abortion, perhaps the time has come for males to accept the responsibility for contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy. The methods that currently exist for males are condoms and vasectomy. Other options are being explored – both nonhormonal and reversible contraception including daily pills, gels, and long-acting injections.
The pill for men has been under preliminary trials with promising results. This contraceptive pill contains dimethandrolone undecanoate, which is an androgen anabolic steroid progesterone once-daily pill that suppresses FSH and LH, causing a decrease in the production of testosterone and consequently sperm production.1 (Long, Lee, & Blithe, 2019). This pill is in long-term trials to determine the efficacy and side effects, including the impact on libido, liver, and kidney disease.
The injectable male contraceptive in trials now includes two different options. The first was a long-acting progestin, testosterone, and androgen combination. The male participants received an intramuscular injection every 8 weeks. Although the results of the study were promising – sperm production was effectively reduced, the side effects were too severe for participants to continue use. Side effects much like those of the female Depo-Provera injections included acne and mood disorders. Men experienced erectile dysfunction while at the same time having an increase in sex drive.2 (Em, 2018).
Recently, researchers in India have studied a nonhormonal injectable with promising outcomes. It prevented pregnancy in more than 97% of participants. This injectable polymer gel is placed into the male’s vas deferens to block sperm from leaving the body. This product inactivates sperm, essentially creating temporary sterilization for men. The benefit of this product, called RISUG (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance), is a single injection that can be effective for 13 years. It can be reversed earlier if needed by injecting a dissolving gel into the male’s vas deferens.1,2 In the United States, there is an identical product called Vasalgel – a polymer injected into the vas deferens – also being studied for temporary infertility.
Another synthetic implanted androgen product being studied is 7 alpha-methyl-19-nortestosterone (MENT), a synthetic steroid that resembles testosterone but does not convert into testosterone and, consequently, does not stimulate prostate growth. It is administered via two subdermal implants and is effective for 12 months. The first subdermal implant releases the synthetic androgen, which is more potent than testosterone, and the other emits LH-releasing hormone.3 Studies demonstrate that MENT suppresses sperm production.1
Finally, studies are underway using transdermal gel applications to suppress sperm concentrations. The daily gel is absorbed through the skin after application to two different areas of the man’s body: the shoulders and upper arms. The daily application of the progestin product, Nestorone, and testosterone gel has been found to reduce sperm concentrations to < 1 x 106/mL. Studies measured gonadal concentrations after 4 weeks.1 Users were happy with the use of a topical gel, with minimal side effects such as lower libido, weight gain, and changes in cholesterol, yet inconsistent use of the product resulted in lower than anticipated results.4
Male contraceptive options are long overdue to dramatically reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies and the burden of contraception placed on women. Getting these products to market will be half the battle – getting men to commit to using these options and women to trust male compliance may further impede acceptance. Men have not had to carry the burden and economics of single parenting. Men interested in casual sex may now need to accept more responsibility for unplanned pregnancy and be proactive with prevention, particularly as abortion laws are being challenged.
Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of pediatrics division of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the editorial board for Pediatric News and has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Long J E et al. Clin Chem. 2019;65(1):153-60.
2. Male birth control: Current options and new breakthroughs, SingleCare: Health Education. Aug. 6, 2018.
3. Sundaram K et al. Ann Med. 1993;25(2):199-205.
4. Anawalt BD et al. Andrology. 2019;7(6):878-87.
Study: COVID-19 can kill months after infection
Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.
Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.
Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.
“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.
Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.
Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.
The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.
Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.
Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.
Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”
“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.
Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.
Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.
“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.
Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.
Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.
The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.
Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.
Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.
Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”
“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.
Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.
Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.
“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.
Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.
Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.
The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.
Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.
Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.
Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”
“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Post–COVID-19 cardiac involvement in college athletes much rarer than thought
In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.
None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.
“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Harmon, along with Jeffrey A. Drezner, MD, also from UW, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, were co–primary investigators of the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA) study. The group’s findings were published April 17 in Circulation.
Nearly 20,000 athletes tested
The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.
“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.
Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.
The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
‘Exercise appears to be protective’
Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).
The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.
“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.
During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).
“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The study is complementary, he noted, to one published in March that looked at professional athletes post–COVID-19 and also found cardiac pathology in fewer than 1%. The mean age in that study was 25 years.
“They saw a similarly low rate of cardiac involvement in professional athletes, and together with this study, it gives us new information that is also reassuring,” added Dr. Lander, codirector of sports cardiology at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., an RWJBarnabas Health facility, and team cardiologist for Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J.
Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes
“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.
“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.
Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.
“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.
ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.
In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.
None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.
“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Harmon, along with Jeffrey A. Drezner, MD, also from UW, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, were co–primary investigators of the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA) study. The group’s findings were published April 17 in Circulation.
Nearly 20,000 athletes tested
The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.
“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.
Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.
The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
‘Exercise appears to be protective’
Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).
The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.
“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.
During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).
“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The study is complementary, he noted, to one published in March that looked at professional athletes post–COVID-19 and also found cardiac pathology in fewer than 1%. The mean age in that study was 25 years.
“They saw a similarly low rate of cardiac involvement in professional athletes, and together with this study, it gives us new information that is also reassuring,” added Dr. Lander, codirector of sports cardiology at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., an RWJBarnabas Health facility, and team cardiologist for Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J.
Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes
“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.
“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.
Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.
“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.
ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.
In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.
None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.
“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Harmon, along with Jeffrey A. Drezner, MD, also from UW, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, were co–primary investigators of the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA) study. The group’s findings were published April 17 in Circulation.
Nearly 20,000 athletes tested
The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.
“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.
Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.
The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
‘Exercise appears to be protective’
Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).
The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.
“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.
During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).
“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The study is complementary, he noted, to one published in March that looked at professional athletes post–COVID-19 and also found cardiac pathology in fewer than 1%. The mean age in that study was 25 years.
“They saw a similarly low rate of cardiac involvement in professional athletes, and together with this study, it gives us new information that is also reassuring,” added Dr. Lander, codirector of sports cardiology at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., an RWJBarnabas Health facility, and team cardiologist for Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J.
Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes
“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.
“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.
Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.
“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.
ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.
FROM CIRCULATION
Intranasal third-generation CGRP effective for acute migraine
, new research shows. In a randomized dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial, investigators found both the 10- and 20-mg doses of the drug were associated with pain freedom in more than 20% of patients and alleviated the most bothersome symptom, defined as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea, in more than 40% of patients.
Most adverse events associated with zavegepant were mild or moderate. The drug is not associated with liver toxicity.
“The intranasal formulation demonstrated some separation on pain relief as early as 15 minutes, though in terms of the statistical hierarchy, those differences were not significant,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who presented the findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Sustained pain freedom was observed from 2 to 48 hours post-dose,” Dr. Lipton added. A phase 3 clinical trial has been initiated to compare the efficacy of the 10-mg dose with that of placebo for the acute treatment of migraine.
Three doses
Zavegepant is the only intranasal CGRP receptor antagonist undergoing late-stage development for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous single ascending dose study suggested the drug provided systemic exposure and had potentially therapeutic effects.
The study included participants age 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of migraine for at least 1 year, had two to eight migraine attacks of moderate or severe intensity and fewer than 15 monthly headache days over the previous 3 months.
The investigators randomly assigned participants in this phase 2/3 trial to placebo or a 5-mg, 10-mg, or 20-mg dose of intranasal zavegepant. Participants treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain with their assigned treatment.
The study’s two primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after dosing.
The investigators randomly assigned 1,673 participants to treatment. Of this group, 1,588 treated an attack with study medication. The researchers also included 1,581 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population. Of this group, 387 received the 5-mg dose, 391 received the 10-mg dose, 402 received the 20-mg dose, and 401 received placebo.
Pain freedom
The population’s median age was approximately 41 years, 86% of participants were female, and 14% were taking preventive migraine medication. Participants’ mean number of moderate or severe attacks per month was 4.9 overall. The most common most bothersome symptom was photophobia.
The researchers observed a difference in outcome between the active and placebo arms as early as 15 minutes post-dose, but this difference was not statistically significant. At 2 hours, the rate of pain freedom was 15.5% in the placebo group, 22.5% in the 10-mg group (P = .0113), and 23.1% in the 20-mg group (P = .0055). The result for the 5-mg group (19.6%) was not significantly different from that of the placebo group.
The rate of freedom from the most bothersome symptom was 33.7% in the placebo group, 41.9% in the 10-mg group (P = .0155), and 42.5% in the 20-mg group (P = .0094). For this endpoint as well, the result of the 5-mg group (39%) was not significantly different from that among controls.
The most common adverse events were dysgeusia (impaired sense of taste) and nasal discomfort. The rate of dysgeusia ranged from 13.5% to 16.1% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 3.5% among controls. The rate of nasal discomfort ranged from 1.3% to 5.2% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 0.2% among controls. The investigators concluded that intranasal zavegepant had a favorable safety profile.
‘Exciting potential addition’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “Zavegepant is an exciting potential addition to rimegepant for the acute care of migraine.”
Many patients like the orally dissolving tablet formulation of rimegepant (Nurtec), but some have nausea and do not absorb oral preparations well, said Dr. Rapoport, who is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a past president of the International Headache Society. “So, it makes sense to have a gepant, which is not a vasoconstrictor and has few adverse events, developed as a nasal spray.” Nasal preparations often work more quickly than oral preparations, he added.
Other intranasal treatments available for migraine include dihydroergotamine (Migranal), zolmitriptan (Zomig), sumatriptan (Imitrex), and ketorolac (Sprix). It is not possible to compare zavegepant with these medications, or with other CGRP receptor antagonists, because they have not been studied in head-to-head trials, said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the study but has previously consulted for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, the drug’s manufacturer.
“I would predict a nasal spray would work somewhat faster and better in some patients with nausea or poor absorption, so I would be happy to have it approved and available.”
The current study uses endpoints typically prescribed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and includes a large sample size, said Dr. Rapoport.
“During the informed consent [stage], the patients in this trial would be told that there is a 3-in-4 chance that they would be getting an active drug versus placebo, and that often increases the placebo response,” he added. “In this trial, a placebo response of 15.5% is slightly high, but not atypical,” he added.
This study raises the question of whether other acute-care migraine medications should be studied as nasal preparations. “I think the answer is yes,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Fast-acting, effective nasal preparations that are easy to use and cause few adverse events [are] what we need.”
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Lipton has been a consultant for Biohaven, has conducted studies funded by the company, and has stock in the company. Dr. Rapoport has consulted and spoken for Biohaven, but did not participate in the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. In a randomized dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial, investigators found both the 10- and 20-mg doses of the drug were associated with pain freedom in more than 20% of patients and alleviated the most bothersome symptom, defined as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea, in more than 40% of patients.
Most adverse events associated with zavegepant were mild or moderate. The drug is not associated with liver toxicity.
“The intranasal formulation demonstrated some separation on pain relief as early as 15 minutes, though in terms of the statistical hierarchy, those differences were not significant,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who presented the findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Sustained pain freedom was observed from 2 to 48 hours post-dose,” Dr. Lipton added. A phase 3 clinical trial has been initiated to compare the efficacy of the 10-mg dose with that of placebo for the acute treatment of migraine.
Three doses
Zavegepant is the only intranasal CGRP receptor antagonist undergoing late-stage development for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous single ascending dose study suggested the drug provided systemic exposure and had potentially therapeutic effects.
The study included participants age 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of migraine for at least 1 year, had two to eight migraine attacks of moderate or severe intensity and fewer than 15 monthly headache days over the previous 3 months.
The investigators randomly assigned participants in this phase 2/3 trial to placebo or a 5-mg, 10-mg, or 20-mg dose of intranasal zavegepant. Participants treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain with their assigned treatment.
The study’s two primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after dosing.
The investigators randomly assigned 1,673 participants to treatment. Of this group, 1,588 treated an attack with study medication. The researchers also included 1,581 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population. Of this group, 387 received the 5-mg dose, 391 received the 10-mg dose, 402 received the 20-mg dose, and 401 received placebo.
Pain freedom
The population’s median age was approximately 41 years, 86% of participants were female, and 14% were taking preventive migraine medication. Participants’ mean number of moderate or severe attacks per month was 4.9 overall. The most common most bothersome symptom was photophobia.
The researchers observed a difference in outcome between the active and placebo arms as early as 15 minutes post-dose, but this difference was not statistically significant. At 2 hours, the rate of pain freedom was 15.5% in the placebo group, 22.5% in the 10-mg group (P = .0113), and 23.1% in the 20-mg group (P = .0055). The result for the 5-mg group (19.6%) was not significantly different from that of the placebo group.
The rate of freedom from the most bothersome symptom was 33.7% in the placebo group, 41.9% in the 10-mg group (P = .0155), and 42.5% in the 20-mg group (P = .0094). For this endpoint as well, the result of the 5-mg group (39%) was not significantly different from that among controls.
The most common adverse events were dysgeusia (impaired sense of taste) and nasal discomfort. The rate of dysgeusia ranged from 13.5% to 16.1% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 3.5% among controls. The rate of nasal discomfort ranged from 1.3% to 5.2% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 0.2% among controls. The investigators concluded that intranasal zavegepant had a favorable safety profile.
‘Exciting potential addition’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “Zavegepant is an exciting potential addition to rimegepant for the acute care of migraine.”
Many patients like the orally dissolving tablet formulation of rimegepant (Nurtec), but some have nausea and do not absorb oral preparations well, said Dr. Rapoport, who is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a past president of the International Headache Society. “So, it makes sense to have a gepant, which is not a vasoconstrictor and has few adverse events, developed as a nasal spray.” Nasal preparations often work more quickly than oral preparations, he added.
Other intranasal treatments available for migraine include dihydroergotamine (Migranal), zolmitriptan (Zomig), sumatriptan (Imitrex), and ketorolac (Sprix). It is not possible to compare zavegepant with these medications, or with other CGRP receptor antagonists, because they have not been studied in head-to-head trials, said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the study but has previously consulted for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, the drug’s manufacturer.
“I would predict a nasal spray would work somewhat faster and better in some patients with nausea or poor absorption, so I would be happy to have it approved and available.”
The current study uses endpoints typically prescribed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and includes a large sample size, said Dr. Rapoport.
“During the informed consent [stage], the patients in this trial would be told that there is a 3-in-4 chance that they would be getting an active drug versus placebo, and that often increases the placebo response,” he added. “In this trial, a placebo response of 15.5% is slightly high, but not atypical,” he added.
This study raises the question of whether other acute-care migraine medications should be studied as nasal preparations. “I think the answer is yes,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Fast-acting, effective nasal preparations that are easy to use and cause few adverse events [are] what we need.”
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Lipton has been a consultant for Biohaven, has conducted studies funded by the company, and has stock in the company. Dr. Rapoport has consulted and spoken for Biohaven, but did not participate in the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. In a randomized dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial, investigators found both the 10- and 20-mg doses of the drug were associated with pain freedom in more than 20% of patients and alleviated the most bothersome symptom, defined as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea, in more than 40% of patients.
Most adverse events associated with zavegepant were mild or moderate. The drug is not associated with liver toxicity.
“The intranasal formulation demonstrated some separation on pain relief as early as 15 minutes, though in terms of the statistical hierarchy, those differences were not significant,” said study investigator Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who presented the findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Sustained pain freedom was observed from 2 to 48 hours post-dose,” Dr. Lipton added. A phase 3 clinical trial has been initiated to compare the efficacy of the 10-mg dose with that of placebo for the acute treatment of migraine.
Three doses
Zavegepant is the only intranasal CGRP receptor antagonist undergoing late-stage development for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous single ascending dose study suggested the drug provided systemic exposure and had potentially therapeutic effects.
The study included participants age 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of migraine for at least 1 year, had two to eight migraine attacks of moderate or severe intensity and fewer than 15 monthly headache days over the previous 3 months.
The investigators randomly assigned participants in this phase 2/3 trial to placebo or a 5-mg, 10-mg, or 20-mg dose of intranasal zavegepant. Participants treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain with their assigned treatment.
The study’s two primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after dosing.
The investigators randomly assigned 1,673 participants to treatment. Of this group, 1,588 treated an attack with study medication. The researchers also included 1,581 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population. Of this group, 387 received the 5-mg dose, 391 received the 10-mg dose, 402 received the 20-mg dose, and 401 received placebo.
Pain freedom
The population’s median age was approximately 41 years, 86% of participants were female, and 14% were taking preventive migraine medication. Participants’ mean number of moderate or severe attacks per month was 4.9 overall. The most common most bothersome symptom was photophobia.
The researchers observed a difference in outcome between the active and placebo arms as early as 15 minutes post-dose, but this difference was not statistically significant. At 2 hours, the rate of pain freedom was 15.5% in the placebo group, 22.5% in the 10-mg group (P = .0113), and 23.1% in the 20-mg group (P = .0055). The result for the 5-mg group (19.6%) was not significantly different from that of the placebo group.
The rate of freedom from the most bothersome symptom was 33.7% in the placebo group, 41.9% in the 10-mg group (P = .0155), and 42.5% in the 20-mg group (P = .0094). For this endpoint as well, the result of the 5-mg group (39%) was not significantly different from that among controls.
The most common adverse events were dysgeusia (impaired sense of taste) and nasal discomfort. The rate of dysgeusia ranged from 13.5% to 16.1% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 3.5% among controls. The rate of nasal discomfort ranged from 1.3% to 5.2% in the zavegepant groups, compared with 0.2% among controls. The investigators concluded that intranasal zavegepant had a favorable safety profile.
‘Exciting potential addition’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “Zavegepant is an exciting potential addition to rimegepant for the acute care of migraine.”
Many patients like the orally dissolving tablet formulation of rimegepant (Nurtec), but some have nausea and do not absorb oral preparations well, said Dr. Rapoport, who is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a past president of the International Headache Society. “So, it makes sense to have a gepant, which is not a vasoconstrictor and has few adverse events, developed as a nasal spray.” Nasal preparations often work more quickly than oral preparations, he added.
Other intranasal treatments available for migraine include dihydroergotamine (Migranal), zolmitriptan (Zomig), sumatriptan (Imitrex), and ketorolac (Sprix). It is not possible to compare zavegepant with these medications, or with other CGRP receptor antagonists, because they have not been studied in head-to-head trials, said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the study but has previously consulted for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, the drug’s manufacturer.
“I would predict a nasal spray would work somewhat faster and better in some patients with nausea or poor absorption, so I would be happy to have it approved and available.”
The current study uses endpoints typically prescribed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and includes a large sample size, said Dr. Rapoport.
“During the informed consent [stage], the patients in this trial would be told that there is a 3-in-4 chance that they would be getting an active drug versus placebo, and that often increases the placebo response,” he added. “In this trial, a placebo response of 15.5% is slightly high, but not atypical,” he added.
This study raises the question of whether other acute-care migraine medications should be studied as nasal preparations. “I think the answer is yes,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Fast-acting, effective nasal preparations that are easy to use and cause few adverse events [are] what we need.”
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Lipton has been a consultant for Biohaven, has conducted studies funded by the company, and has stock in the company. Dr. Rapoport has consulted and spoken for Biohaven, but did not participate in the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
Female genital cutting: Caring for patients through the lens of health care equity
Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female circumcision or female genital mutilation, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”1 It is a culturally determined practice that is mainly concentrated in certain parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and now is observed worldwide among migrants from those areas.1 Approximately 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone FGC in 31 countries, although encouragingly the practice’s prevalence seems to be declining, especially among younger women.2
Too often, FGC goes unrecognized in women who present for medical care, even in cases where a genitourinary exam is performed and documented.3,4 As a result, patients face delays in diagnosis and management of associated complications and symptoms. Female genital cutting is usually excluded from medical school or residency training curricula,5 and physicians often lack familiarity with the necessary clinical or surgical management of patients who have had the procedure.6 It is crucial, however, that ObGyns feel comfortable recognizing FGC and clinically caring for pregnant and nonpregnant patients who have undergone the procedure. The obstetric-gynecologic setting should be the clinical space in which FGC is correctly diagnosed and from where patients with complications can be referred for appropriate care.
FGC: Through the lens of inequity
Providing culturally competent and sensitive care to women who have undergone FGC is paramount to reducing health care inequities for these patients. Beyond the medical recommendations we review below, we suggest the following considerations when approaching care for these patients.
Acknowledge our biases. It is paramount for us, as providers, to acknowledge our own biases and how these might affect our relationship with the patient and how our care is received. This starts with our language and terminology: The term female genital mutilation can be judgmental or offensive to our patients, many of whom do not consider themselves to have been mutilated. This is why we prefer to use the term female genital cutting, or whichever word the patient uses, so as not to alienate a patient who might already face many other barriers and microaggressions in seeking health care.
Control our responses. Another way we must check our bias is by controlling our reactions during history taking or examining patients who have undergone FGC. Understandably, providers might be shocked to hear patients recount their childhood experiences of FGC or by examining an infibulated scar, but patients report noticing and experiencing hurt, distress, and shame when providers display judgment, horror, or disgust.7 Patients have reported that they are acutely aware that they might be viewed as “backward” and “primitive” in US health care settings.8 These kinds of feelings and experiences can further exacerbate patients’ distrust and avoidance of the health care system altogether. Therefore, providers should acknowledge their own biases regarding the issue as well as those of their staff and work to mitigate them.
Avoid stigmatization. While FGC can have long-term effects (discussed below), it is important to remember that many women who have undergone FGC do not experience symptoms that are bothersome or feel that FGC is central to their lives or lived experiences. While we must be thorough in our history taking to explore possible urinary, gynecologic, and sexual symptoms of concern and bother to the patient, we must avoid stigmatizing our patients by assuming that all who have undergone FGC are “sexually disabled,” which may lead a provider to recommend medically unindicated intervention, such as clitoral reconstruction.9
Continue to: Classifying FGC types...
Classifying FGC types
The WHO has classified FGC into 4 different types1:
- type 1, partial or total removal of the clitoris or prepuce
- type 2, partial or total removal of part of the clitoris and labia minora
- type 3 (also known as infibulation), the narrowing of the vaginal orifice by cutting, removing, and/or repositioning the labia, and
- type 4, all other procedures to the female genitalia for nonmedical reasons.
Long-term complications
Female genital cutting, especially types 2 and 3, can lead to long-term obstetric and gynecologic complications that the ObGyn should be able to diagnose and manage (TABLE).
The most common long-term complications of FGC are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, recurrent vaginal and urinary tract infections, and sexual dysfunction/dissatisfaction.10 One recent cross-sectional study that used validated questionnaires on pelvic floor and psychosexual symptoms found that women with FGC had higher distress scores than women who had not undergone FGC, indicating various pelvic floor symptoms responsible for impact on their daily lives.11
Infertility can result from a combination of physical barriers (vaginal stenosis and an infibulated scar) and psychologic barriers secondary to dyspareunia, for example.12 Labor and delivery also presents a challenge to both patients and providers, especially in cases of infibulation. Studies show that patients who have undergone FGC are at increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, episiotomy, cesarean delivery, and extended hospital stay.13 Neonatal complications, including infant resuscitation and perinatal death, are more commonly reported in studies outside the United States.13
Clinical management recommendations
It is important to be aware of the WHO FCG classifications and be able to recognize evidence of the procedure on examination. The ObGyn should perform a detailed physical exam of the external genitalia as well as a pelvic floor exam of every patient. If the patient does not disclose a history of FGC but it is suspected based on the examination, the clinician should inquire sensitively if the patient is aware of having undergone any genital procedures.
Especially when a history of FGC has been confirmed, clinicians should ask patients sensitively about their urinary and sexual function and satisfaction. Validated tools, such as the Female Sexual Function Index, the Female Sexual Distress Scale, and the Pelvic Floor Disability Index, may be helpful in gathering an objective and detailed assessment of the patient’s symptoms and level of distress.14 Clinicians also should ask about the patient’s detailed obstetric history, particularly regarding the second stage, delivery, and postpartum complications. The clinician also should specifically inquire about a history of defibulation or additional genital procedures.
Patients with urethral strictures or stenosis may require an exam under anesthesia, cystoscopy, urethral dilation, or urethroplasty.12 Those with chronic urinary tract or vaginal infections may require chronic oral suppressive therapy or defibulation (described below). Defibulation also may be considered for relief of severe dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia that may be resulting from hematocolpos. The ObGyn also should make certain to evaluate for other common causes of these symptoms that may be unrelated to FGC, such as endometriosis.
Many women who have undergone FGC do not report dyspareunia or sexual dissatisfaction; however, infibulation especially has been associated with higher rates of these sequelae.12 In addition to defibulation, pelvic floor physical therapy with an experienced therapist may be helpful for patients with pelvic floor dysfunction, vaginismus, and/or dyspareunia.
The defibulation procedure
Defibulation (or deinfibulation) is a surgical reconstructive procedure that opens the infibulated scar of patients who have undergone type 3 FGC (infibulation), thus exposing the urethra and introitus, and in almost half of cases an intact clitoris.15 Defibulation may be specifically requested by a patient or it may be recommended by the ObGyn either for reducing complications of pregnancy or to address the patient’s gynecologic, sexual, or urogynecologic symptoms by allowing penetrative intercourse, urinary flow, physiologic delivery, and menstruation.16
Defibulation should be performed under regional or general anesthesia and can be performed during pregnancy (or even in labor). An anterior incision is made on the infibulated scar, creating a new labia major, and the edges are sutured separately. Postoperatively, patients should be instructed to perform sitz baths and to expect a change in their urinary voiding stream.12 The few studies that have evaluated defibulation have shown high rates of success in addressing preoperative symptoms; the complication rates of defibulation are low and the satisfaction rates are high.16
The ethical conundrum of reinfibulation
Reinfibulation is defined as the restitching or reapproximation of scar tissue or the labia after delivery or a gynecologic procedure, and it is often performed routinely after every delivery in patients’ countries of origin.17
Postpartum reinfibulation on patient request raises legal and ethical issues for the ObGyn. In the United Kingdom, reinfibulation is illegal, and some international organizations, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the WHO, have recommended against the practice. In the United States, reinfibulation of an adult is legal, as it falls under the umbrella of elective female genital cosmetic surgery.18,19
The procedure could create or exacerbate long-term complications and should generally be discouraged. However, if despite extensive counseling (preferably in the prenatal period) a patient insists on having the procedure, the ObGyn may need to elevate the principle of patient autonomy and either comply or find a practitioner who is comfortable performing it. One retrospective review in Switzerland suggested that specific care and informative counseling prenatally with the inclusion of a patient’s partner in the discussion can improve the acceptability of defibulation without reinfibulation.20
Conclusion
It is important for ObGyns to be familiar with the practice of FGC and to be trained in its recognition on examination and care for the long-term complications that can result from the practice. At the same time, ObGyns should be especially conscious of their biases in order to provide culturally competent care and reduce health care stigmatization and inequities for these patients.
- World Health Organization. Female genital mutilation. February 3, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- UNICEF. Female genital mutilation (FGM). February 2020. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- Stoklosa H, Nour NM. The eye cannot see what the mind does not know: female genital mutilation. Emerg Med J. 2018;35:585-586. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-207994.
- Abdulcadir J, Dugerdil A, Boulvain M, et al. Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125:256-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.016.
- Jäger F, Schulze S, Hohlfeld P. Female genital mutilation in Switzerland: a survey among gynaecologists. Swiss Med Wkly. 2002;132:259-264.
- Zaidi N, Khalil A, Roberts C, et al. Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:161-164. doi: 10.1080/01443610601124257.
- Chalmers B, Hashi KO. 432 Somali women’s birth experiences in Canada after earlier female genital mutilation. Birth. 2000;27:227-234. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00227.x.
- Shahawy S, Amanuel H, Nour NM. Perspectives on female genital cutting among immigrant women and men in Boston. Soc Sci Med. 2019;220:331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.030.
- Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, et al. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531-542. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.12.004.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: a persisting practice. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Summer;1(3):135-139.
- Binkova A, Uebelhart M, Dällenbach P, et al. A cross-sectional study on pelvic floor symptoms in women living with female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health. 2021;18:39. doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01097-9.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: clinical and cultural guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;59:272-279. doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000118939.19371.af.
- WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome; Banks E, Meirik O, Farley T, et al. Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet. 2006;367:1835-1841. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 119: female sexual dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:996-1007. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821921ce.
- Nour NM, Michels KB, Bryant AE. Defibulation to treat female genital cutting: effect on symptoms and sexual function. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:55-60. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224613.72892.77.
- Johnson C, Nour NM. Surgical techniques: defibulation of type III female genital cutting. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1544-1547. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00616.x.
- Serour GI. The issue of reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:93-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.001.
- Shahawy S, Deshpande NA, Nour NM. Cross-cultural obstetric and gynecologic care of Muslim patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:969-973. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001112.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective female genital cosmetic surgery: ACOG committee opinion summary, number 795. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:249-250. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003617.
- Abdulcadir J, McLaren S, Boulvain M, et al. Health education and clinical care of immigrant women with female genital mutilation/cutting who request postpartum reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135:69-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.027.
Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female circumcision or female genital mutilation, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”1 It is a culturally determined practice that is mainly concentrated in certain parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and now is observed worldwide among migrants from those areas.1 Approximately 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone FGC in 31 countries, although encouragingly the practice’s prevalence seems to be declining, especially among younger women.2
Too often, FGC goes unrecognized in women who present for medical care, even in cases where a genitourinary exam is performed and documented.3,4 As a result, patients face delays in diagnosis and management of associated complications and symptoms. Female genital cutting is usually excluded from medical school or residency training curricula,5 and physicians often lack familiarity with the necessary clinical or surgical management of patients who have had the procedure.6 It is crucial, however, that ObGyns feel comfortable recognizing FGC and clinically caring for pregnant and nonpregnant patients who have undergone the procedure. The obstetric-gynecologic setting should be the clinical space in which FGC is correctly diagnosed and from where patients with complications can be referred for appropriate care.
FGC: Through the lens of inequity
Providing culturally competent and sensitive care to women who have undergone FGC is paramount to reducing health care inequities for these patients. Beyond the medical recommendations we review below, we suggest the following considerations when approaching care for these patients.
Acknowledge our biases. It is paramount for us, as providers, to acknowledge our own biases and how these might affect our relationship with the patient and how our care is received. This starts with our language and terminology: The term female genital mutilation can be judgmental or offensive to our patients, many of whom do not consider themselves to have been mutilated. This is why we prefer to use the term female genital cutting, or whichever word the patient uses, so as not to alienate a patient who might already face many other barriers and microaggressions in seeking health care.
Control our responses. Another way we must check our bias is by controlling our reactions during history taking or examining patients who have undergone FGC. Understandably, providers might be shocked to hear patients recount their childhood experiences of FGC or by examining an infibulated scar, but patients report noticing and experiencing hurt, distress, and shame when providers display judgment, horror, or disgust.7 Patients have reported that they are acutely aware that they might be viewed as “backward” and “primitive” in US health care settings.8 These kinds of feelings and experiences can further exacerbate patients’ distrust and avoidance of the health care system altogether. Therefore, providers should acknowledge their own biases regarding the issue as well as those of their staff and work to mitigate them.
Avoid stigmatization. While FGC can have long-term effects (discussed below), it is important to remember that many women who have undergone FGC do not experience symptoms that are bothersome or feel that FGC is central to their lives or lived experiences. While we must be thorough in our history taking to explore possible urinary, gynecologic, and sexual symptoms of concern and bother to the patient, we must avoid stigmatizing our patients by assuming that all who have undergone FGC are “sexually disabled,” which may lead a provider to recommend medically unindicated intervention, such as clitoral reconstruction.9
Continue to: Classifying FGC types...
Classifying FGC types
The WHO has classified FGC into 4 different types1:
- type 1, partial or total removal of the clitoris or prepuce
- type 2, partial or total removal of part of the clitoris and labia minora
- type 3 (also known as infibulation), the narrowing of the vaginal orifice by cutting, removing, and/or repositioning the labia, and
- type 4, all other procedures to the female genitalia for nonmedical reasons.
Long-term complications
Female genital cutting, especially types 2 and 3, can lead to long-term obstetric and gynecologic complications that the ObGyn should be able to diagnose and manage (TABLE).
The most common long-term complications of FGC are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, recurrent vaginal and urinary tract infections, and sexual dysfunction/dissatisfaction.10 One recent cross-sectional study that used validated questionnaires on pelvic floor and psychosexual symptoms found that women with FGC had higher distress scores than women who had not undergone FGC, indicating various pelvic floor symptoms responsible for impact on their daily lives.11
Infertility can result from a combination of physical barriers (vaginal stenosis and an infibulated scar) and psychologic barriers secondary to dyspareunia, for example.12 Labor and delivery also presents a challenge to both patients and providers, especially in cases of infibulation. Studies show that patients who have undergone FGC are at increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, episiotomy, cesarean delivery, and extended hospital stay.13 Neonatal complications, including infant resuscitation and perinatal death, are more commonly reported in studies outside the United States.13
Clinical management recommendations
It is important to be aware of the WHO FCG classifications and be able to recognize evidence of the procedure on examination. The ObGyn should perform a detailed physical exam of the external genitalia as well as a pelvic floor exam of every patient. If the patient does not disclose a history of FGC but it is suspected based on the examination, the clinician should inquire sensitively if the patient is aware of having undergone any genital procedures.
Especially when a history of FGC has been confirmed, clinicians should ask patients sensitively about their urinary and sexual function and satisfaction. Validated tools, such as the Female Sexual Function Index, the Female Sexual Distress Scale, and the Pelvic Floor Disability Index, may be helpful in gathering an objective and detailed assessment of the patient’s symptoms and level of distress.14 Clinicians also should ask about the patient’s detailed obstetric history, particularly regarding the second stage, delivery, and postpartum complications. The clinician also should specifically inquire about a history of defibulation or additional genital procedures.
Patients with urethral strictures or stenosis may require an exam under anesthesia, cystoscopy, urethral dilation, or urethroplasty.12 Those with chronic urinary tract or vaginal infections may require chronic oral suppressive therapy or defibulation (described below). Defibulation also may be considered for relief of severe dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia that may be resulting from hematocolpos. The ObGyn also should make certain to evaluate for other common causes of these symptoms that may be unrelated to FGC, such as endometriosis.
Many women who have undergone FGC do not report dyspareunia or sexual dissatisfaction; however, infibulation especially has been associated with higher rates of these sequelae.12 In addition to defibulation, pelvic floor physical therapy with an experienced therapist may be helpful for patients with pelvic floor dysfunction, vaginismus, and/or dyspareunia.
The defibulation procedure
Defibulation (or deinfibulation) is a surgical reconstructive procedure that opens the infibulated scar of patients who have undergone type 3 FGC (infibulation), thus exposing the urethra and introitus, and in almost half of cases an intact clitoris.15 Defibulation may be specifically requested by a patient or it may be recommended by the ObGyn either for reducing complications of pregnancy or to address the patient’s gynecologic, sexual, or urogynecologic symptoms by allowing penetrative intercourse, urinary flow, physiologic delivery, and menstruation.16
Defibulation should be performed under regional or general anesthesia and can be performed during pregnancy (or even in labor). An anterior incision is made on the infibulated scar, creating a new labia major, and the edges are sutured separately. Postoperatively, patients should be instructed to perform sitz baths and to expect a change in their urinary voiding stream.12 The few studies that have evaluated defibulation have shown high rates of success in addressing preoperative symptoms; the complication rates of defibulation are low and the satisfaction rates are high.16
The ethical conundrum of reinfibulation
Reinfibulation is defined as the restitching or reapproximation of scar tissue or the labia after delivery or a gynecologic procedure, and it is often performed routinely after every delivery in patients’ countries of origin.17
Postpartum reinfibulation on patient request raises legal and ethical issues for the ObGyn. In the United Kingdom, reinfibulation is illegal, and some international organizations, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the WHO, have recommended against the practice. In the United States, reinfibulation of an adult is legal, as it falls under the umbrella of elective female genital cosmetic surgery.18,19
The procedure could create or exacerbate long-term complications and should generally be discouraged. However, if despite extensive counseling (preferably in the prenatal period) a patient insists on having the procedure, the ObGyn may need to elevate the principle of patient autonomy and either comply or find a practitioner who is comfortable performing it. One retrospective review in Switzerland suggested that specific care and informative counseling prenatally with the inclusion of a patient’s partner in the discussion can improve the acceptability of defibulation without reinfibulation.20
Conclusion
It is important for ObGyns to be familiar with the practice of FGC and to be trained in its recognition on examination and care for the long-term complications that can result from the practice. At the same time, ObGyns should be especially conscious of their biases in order to provide culturally competent care and reduce health care stigmatization and inequities for these patients.
Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female circumcision or female genital mutilation, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”1 It is a culturally determined practice that is mainly concentrated in certain parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and now is observed worldwide among migrants from those areas.1 Approximately 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone FGC in 31 countries, although encouragingly the practice’s prevalence seems to be declining, especially among younger women.2
Too often, FGC goes unrecognized in women who present for medical care, even in cases where a genitourinary exam is performed and documented.3,4 As a result, patients face delays in diagnosis and management of associated complications and symptoms. Female genital cutting is usually excluded from medical school or residency training curricula,5 and physicians often lack familiarity with the necessary clinical or surgical management of patients who have had the procedure.6 It is crucial, however, that ObGyns feel comfortable recognizing FGC and clinically caring for pregnant and nonpregnant patients who have undergone the procedure. The obstetric-gynecologic setting should be the clinical space in which FGC is correctly diagnosed and from where patients with complications can be referred for appropriate care.
FGC: Through the lens of inequity
Providing culturally competent and sensitive care to women who have undergone FGC is paramount to reducing health care inequities for these patients. Beyond the medical recommendations we review below, we suggest the following considerations when approaching care for these patients.
Acknowledge our biases. It is paramount for us, as providers, to acknowledge our own biases and how these might affect our relationship with the patient and how our care is received. This starts with our language and terminology: The term female genital mutilation can be judgmental or offensive to our patients, many of whom do not consider themselves to have been mutilated. This is why we prefer to use the term female genital cutting, or whichever word the patient uses, so as not to alienate a patient who might already face many other barriers and microaggressions in seeking health care.
Control our responses. Another way we must check our bias is by controlling our reactions during history taking or examining patients who have undergone FGC. Understandably, providers might be shocked to hear patients recount their childhood experiences of FGC or by examining an infibulated scar, but patients report noticing and experiencing hurt, distress, and shame when providers display judgment, horror, or disgust.7 Patients have reported that they are acutely aware that they might be viewed as “backward” and “primitive” in US health care settings.8 These kinds of feelings and experiences can further exacerbate patients’ distrust and avoidance of the health care system altogether. Therefore, providers should acknowledge their own biases regarding the issue as well as those of their staff and work to mitigate them.
Avoid stigmatization. While FGC can have long-term effects (discussed below), it is important to remember that many women who have undergone FGC do not experience symptoms that are bothersome or feel that FGC is central to their lives or lived experiences. While we must be thorough in our history taking to explore possible urinary, gynecologic, and sexual symptoms of concern and bother to the patient, we must avoid stigmatizing our patients by assuming that all who have undergone FGC are “sexually disabled,” which may lead a provider to recommend medically unindicated intervention, such as clitoral reconstruction.9
Continue to: Classifying FGC types...
Classifying FGC types
The WHO has classified FGC into 4 different types1:
- type 1, partial or total removal of the clitoris or prepuce
- type 2, partial or total removal of part of the clitoris and labia minora
- type 3 (also known as infibulation), the narrowing of the vaginal orifice by cutting, removing, and/or repositioning the labia, and
- type 4, all other procedures to the female genitalia for nonmedical reasons.
Long-term complications
Female genital cutting, especially types 2 and 3, can lead to long-term obstetric and gynecologic complications that the ObGyn should be able to diagnose and manage (TABLE).
The most common long-term complications of FGC are dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, recurrent vaginal and urinary tract infections, and sexual dysfunction/dissatisfaction.10 One recent cross-sectional study that used validated questionnaires on pelvic floor and psychosexual symptoms found that women with FGC had higher distress scores than women who had not undergone FGC, indicating various pelvic floor symptoms responsible for impact on their daily lives.11
Infertility can result from a combination of physical barriers (vaginal stenosis and an infibulated scar) and psychologic barriers secondary to dyspareunia, for example.12 Labor and delivery also presents a challenge to both patients and providers, especially in cases of infibulation. Studies show that patients who have undergone FGC are at increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, episiotomy, cesarean delivery, and extended hospital stay.13 Neonatal complications, including infant resuscitation and perinatal death, are more commonly reported in studies outside the United States.13
Clinical management recommendations
It is important to be aware of the WHO FCG classifications and be able to recognize evidence of the procedure on examination. The ObGyn should perform a detailed physical exam of the external genitalia as well as a pelvic floor exam of every patient. If the patient does not disclose a history of FGC but it is suspected based on the examination, the clinician should inquire sensitively if the patient is aware of having undergone any genital procedures.
Especially when a history of FGC has been confirmed, clinicians should ask patients sensitively about their urinary and sexual function and satisfaction. Validated tools, such as the Female Sexual Function Index, the Female Sexual Distress Scale, and the Pelvic Floor Disability Index, may be helpful in gathering an objective and detailed assessment of the patient’s symptoms and level of distress.14 Clinicians also should ask about the patient’s detailed obstetric history, particularly regarding the second stage, delivery, and postpartum complications. The clinician also should specifically inquire about a history of defibulation or additional genital procedures.
Patients with urethral strictures or stenosis may require an exam under anesthesia, cystoscopy, urethral dilation, or urethroplasty.12 Those with chronic urinary tract or vaginal infections may require chronic oral suppressive therapy or defibulation (described below). Defibulation also may be considered for relief of severe dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia that may be resulting from hematocolpos. The ObGyn also should make certain to evaluate for other common causes of these symptoms that may be unrelated to FGC, such as endometriosis.
Many women who have undergone FGC do not report dyspareunia or sexual dissatisfaction; however, infibulation especially has been associated with higher rates of these sequelae.12 In addition to defibulation, pelvic floor physical therapy with an experienced therapist may be helpful for patients with pelvic floor dysfunction, vaginismus, and/or dyspareunia.
The defibulation procedure
Defibulation (or deinfibulation) is a surgical reconstructive procedure that opens the infibulated scar of patients who have undergone type 3 FGC (infibulation), thus exposing the urethra and introitus, and in almost half of cases an intact clitoris.15 Defibulation may be specifically requested by a patient or it may be recommended by the ObGyn either for reducing complications of pregnancy or to address the patient’s gynecologic, sexual, or urogynecologic symptoms by allowing penetrative intercourse, urinary flow, physiologic delivery, and menstruation.16
Defibulation should be performed under regional or general anesthesia and can be performed during pregnancy (or even in labor). An anterior incision is made on the infibulated scar, creating a new labia major, and the edges are sutured separately. Postoperatively, patients should be instructed to perform sitz baths and to expect a change in their urinary voiding stream.12 The few studies that have evaluated defibulation have shown high rates of success in addressing preoperative symptoms; the complication rates of defibulation are low and the satisfaction rates are high.16
The ethical conundrum of reinfibulation
Reinfibulation is defined as the restitching or reapproximation of scar tissue or the labia after delivery or a gynecologic procedure, and it is often performed routinely after every delivery in patients’ countries of origin.17
Postpartum reinfibulation on patient request raises legal and ethical issues for the ObGyn. In the United Kingdom, reinfibulation is illegal, and some international organizations, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the WHO, have recommended against the practice. In the United States, reinfibulation of an adult is legal, as it falls under the umbrella of elective female genital cosmetic surgery.18,19
The procedure could create or exacerbate long-term complications and should generally be discouraged. However, if despite extensive counseling (preferably in the prenatal period) a patient insists on having the procedure, the ObGyn may need to elevate the principle of patient autonomy and either comply or find a practitioner who is comfortable performing it. One retrospective review in Switzerland suggested that specific care and informative counseling prenatally with the inclusion of a patient’s partner in the discussion can improve the acceptability of defibulation without reinfibulation.20
Conclusion
It is important for ObGyns to be familiar with the practice of FGC and to be trained in its recognition on examination and care for the long-term complications that can result from the practice. At the same time, ObGyns should be especially conscious of their biases in order to provide culturally competent care and reduce health care stigmatization and inequities for these patients.
- World Health Organization. Female genital mutilation. February 3, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- UNICEF. Female genital mutilation (FGM). February 2020. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- Stoklosa H, Nour NM. The eye cannot see what the mind does not know: female genital mutilation. Emerg Med J. 2018;35:585-586. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-207994.
- Abdulcadir J, Dugerdil A, Boulvain M, et al. Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125:256-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.016.
- Jäger F, Schulze S, Hohlfeld P. Female genital mutilation in Switzerland: a survey among gynaecologists. Swiss Med Wkly. 2002;132:259-264.
- Zaidi N, Khalil A, Roberts C, et al. Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:161-164. doi: 10.1080/01443610601124257.
- Chalmers B, Hashi KO. 432 Somali women’s birth experiences in Canada after earlier female genital mutilation. Birth. 2000;27:227-234. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00227.x.
- Shahawy S, Amanuel H, Nour NM. Perspectives on female genital cutting among immigrant women and men in Boston. Soc Sci Med. 2019;220:331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.030.
- Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, et al. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531-542. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.12.004.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: a persisting practice. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Summer;1(3):135-139.
- Binkova A, Uebelhart M, Dällenbach P, et al. A cross-sectional study on pelvic floor symptoms in women living with female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health. 2021;18:39. doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01097-9.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: clinical and cultural guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;59:272-279. doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000118939.19371.af.
- WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome; Banks E, Meirik O, Farley T, et al. Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet. 2006;367:1835-1841. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 119: female sexual dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:996-1007. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821921ce.
- Nour NM, Michels KB, Bryant AE. Defibulation to treat female genital cutting: effect on symptoms and sexual function. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:55-60. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224613.72892.77.
- Johnson C, Nour NM. Surgical techniques: defibulation of type III female genital cutting. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1544-1547. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00616.x.
- Serour GI. The issue of reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:93-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.001.
- Shahawy S, Deshpande NA, Nour NM. Cross-cultural obstetric and gynecologic care of Muslim patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:969-973. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001112.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective female genital cosmetic surgery: ACOG committee opinion summary, number 795. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:249-250. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003617.
- Abdulcadir J, McLaren S, Boulvain M, et al. Health education and clinical care of immigrant women with female genital mutilation/cutting who request postpartum reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135:69-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.027.
- World Health Organization. Female genital mutilation. February 3, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- UNICEF. Female genital mutilation (FGM). February 2020. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/. Accessed February 22, 2021.
- Stoklosa H, Nour NM. The eye cannot see what the mind does not know: female genital mutilation. Emerg Med J. 2018;35:585-586. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-207994.
- Abdulcadir J, Dugerdil A, Boulvain M, et al. Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125:256-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.016.
- Jäger F, Schulze S, Hohlfeld P. Female genital mutilation in Switzerland: a survey among gynaecologists. Swiss Med Wkly. 2002;132:259-264.
- Zaidi N, Khalil A, Roberts C, et al. Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:161-164. doi: 10.1080/01443610601124257.
- Chalmers B, Hashi KO. 432 Somali women’s birth experiences in Canada after earlier female genital mutilation. Birth. 2000;27:227-234. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00227.x.
- Shahawy S, Amanuel H, Nour NM. Perspectives on female genital cutting among immigrant women and men in Boston. Soc Sci Med. 2019;220:331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.030.
- Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, et al. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531-542. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.12.004.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: a persisting practice. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Summer;1(3):135-139.
- Binkova A, Uebelhart M, Dällenbach P, et al. A cross-sectional study on pelvic floor symptoms in women living with female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health. 2021;18:39. doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01097-9.
- Nour NM. Female genital cutting: clinical and cultural guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;59:272-279. doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000118939.19371.af.
- WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome; Banks E, Meirik O, Farley T, et al. Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet. 2006;367:1835-1841. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 119: female sexual dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:996-1007. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821921ce.
- Nour NM, Michels KB, Bryant AE. Defibulation to treat female genital cutting: effect on symptoms and sexual function. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:55-60. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224613.72892.77.
- Johnson C, Nour NM. Surgical techniques: defibulation of type III female genital cutting. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1544-1547. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00616.x.
- Serour GI. The issue of reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:93-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.001.
- Shahawy S, Deshpande NA, Nour NM. Cross-cultural obstetric and gynecologic care of Muslim patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:969-973. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001112.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective female genital cosmetic surgery: ACOG committee opinion summary, number 795. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:249-250. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003617.
- Abdulcadir J, McLaren S, Boulvain M, et al. Health education and clinical care of immigrant women with female genital mutilation/cutting who request postpartum reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135:69-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.03.027.
Can we get to ‘COVID zero’? Experts predict the next 8 months
COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.
If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.
“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.
The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
Still aiming for herd immunity
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.
Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”
In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.
As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.
Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
Masks and the uncommon cold
Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.
Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.
“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
Variants: Some good news?
Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.
Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.
“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
Hesitancy from misinformation
Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.
“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.
Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.
“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”
Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
The future is subject to change
“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.
However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.
Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”
“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.
If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.
“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.
The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
Still aiming for herd immunity
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.
Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”
In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.
As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.
Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
Masks and the uncommon cold
Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.
Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.
“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
Variants: Some good news?
Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.
Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.
“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
Hesitancy from misinformation
Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.
“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.
Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.
“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”
Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
The future is subject to change
“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.
However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.
Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”
“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 is likely to follow a seasonal pattern – similar to some other respiratory viruses – with fewer cases come summer 2021 followed by a jump next winter, experts predicted in a Thursday briefing.
If that pattern holds, it could mean a need to reinforce the mask-wearing message as the weather gets colder and people once again congregate indoors.
“Right now, we are projecting the United States all the way to Aug. 1 [will have] 619,000 deaths from COVID-19, with 4.7 million globally,” said Ali H. Mokdad, PhD, professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, during today’s media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and IHME.
The encouraging news is the vaccines appear to be working, and more Americans are getting them. “If you look at the data for these vaccines, they are extremely safe, they are extremely efficacious, and they make you basically impervious – for the most part – to getting serious disease, hospitalization, or death,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
“These vaccines do what they were meant to do: defang this virus,” said Dr. Adalja, who is an IDSA Fellow and adjunct assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emerging data out of Israel and other countries suggest a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit the virus as well, he added.
Still aiming for herd immunity
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) among teenagers 12-15 years old “imminently,” thereby expanding the pool of people potentially protected by vaccines.
Such authorization could help with overall public health efforts. “That’s simply a mathematical formula,” Dr. Adalja said. “The more people that are vaccinated, including children, the quicker we’ll get to herd immunity.”
In addition, with lower case numbers expected this summer, herd immunity might become more achievable, said Dr. Mokdad, who is also chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington.
As important as herd immunity is, so-called decoupling is “more important to me,” Dr. Adalja said. Decoupling refers to separating infections from the more severe outcomes, so people who get COVID-19 are less likely to need hospitalization or die from it.
Vaccines get the credit here, he added, including with the variants. “Even if you get a breakthrough infection with a variant, it’s not likely to land you in the hospital or cause serious disease or death,” Dr. Adalja said.
Masks and the uncommon cold
Wearing a mask until we reach herd immunity is important because it’s not possible to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, Dr. Mokdad said. “Remember, as many people are waiting to get a vaccine, all of us have access to a mask,” he said.
Dr. Adalja agreed, adding that public health guidance on masks will likely stay in place until we cross that herd immunity threshold and community circulation of the virus goes down.
“People are probably going to want to continue wearing masks, at least some proportion, because they see the benefit for other respiratory viruses,” Dr. Adalja said. “How many of you had a common cold this year?”
Variants: Some good news?
Experts are monitoring the spread of variants of concern in the United States and abroad. On a positive note, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom appears to be dominant in the United States at this time, which is potentially good for two reasons. One is that the available COVID-19 vaccines show sufficient efficacy against the strain, Dr. Mokdad said.
Second, a predominance of B.1.1.7 makes it more difficult for other emerging variants of concern like P1 [Brazil] or B.1.351 [South Africa] to gain control, Dr. Adalja said.
“B.1.1.7 is such an efficient transmitter,” he said. “That’s kind of an advantage … because the more B.1.1.7, you have the less opportunity B.1.351 and P1 have to set up shop.”
Hesitancy from misinformation
Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly at a time when some predict a drop in the number of Americans seeking vaccination. Although needle phobia plays a role in dissuading some from vaccination, the bigger issue is vaccine misinformation, Dr. Adalja said.
“Some people are just terrified when they see the needle. That’s a small part of the proportion of people who don’t want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Adalja said. In contrast, he attributed most hesitancy to misinformation about the vaccine, including reports that the vaccines are fake.
Even celebrities are getting drawn into the misinformation.
“I just had to answer something about Mariah Carey’s vaccination,” he said. Someone believed “that it was done with a retractable needle that didn’t really go into her arm.”
Vaccine hesitancy is more about people not understanding the risk-benefit analysis, taking side effects out of out of context if there are side effects, or being influenced by “arbitrary statements about microchips, infertility, or whatever it might be,” Dr. Adalja said.
The future is subject to change
“We’re expecting another rise in cases and more mortality in our winter season here in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said, adding that the efficacy of the vaccines is likely to attenuate the mortality rate in particular.
However, as the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, so too will the long-term predictions. Factors that could influence future numbers include the expansion of vaccination to teens 12-15 years old and (eventually) younger children, a need for booster vaccines, emerging variants, and the changing proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected.
Again, getting people to adhere to mask wearing come winter could be challenging if the scenario over the summer is “close to normal with less than 200 deaths a day in the United States,” he added. Asking people to wear masks again will be like “swimming upstream.”
“I think it’s a mistake to think that we’re going to get to ‘COVID zero,’ ” Dr. Adalja said. “This is not an eradicable disease. There’s only been one human infectious disease eradicated from the planet, and that’s smallpox, and it had very different characteristics.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Small clinics, practices key to COVID-19 vaccine success: State officials
Primary care physicians and providers in small offices and clinics are going to be key to ensuring that the remaining half of the nation receives a COVID-19 vaccination, state health officials said Wednesday, and the federal government will soon start shipping smaller packages of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that can be more readily used by individual doctors.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of April 21, more than 215 million doses have been administered. About 40% – 134 million Americans – have had at least one dose of a vaccine.
Among those who still haven’t received a shot are people who don’t have the time, may be homebound, or who have questions about the vaccine, or might say they will never be vaccinated, said Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on a call with reporters.
Especially for those who fall into the “not-ever” category, state officials “are working to find trusted messengers like doctors” who can connect with these individuals and give them information, he said.
Primary care physicians’ offices and other small practice settings are “where we are most likely to reach many of the remaining 50%,” Steven Stack, MD, MBA, FACEP, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Public Health, said on the briefing.
State officials also “need to support all people to consult their personal physicians in whom they have confidence and trust to be informed of the benefits of COVID vaccination and the safety of this vaccination,” he said, adding that “this is the way we put this pandemic in the rearview mirror and move on with our lives.”
Dr. Stack said the federal government is starting by working with Pfizer to slim down its packages from 1,170 doses to 450 doses. That should happen before June, said Dr. Stack, adding that state health officials will be able to distribute the smaller packages “more widely and to smaller settings.”
Ideally, packaging for all vaccines will get down to single-dose, pre-filled syringes, he said. But that is a “journey” that the federal government has just begun, said Dr. Stack.
The White House had not responded to a request from this news organization for comment by press time.
Having vaccines onsite in a physician’s office is important, Dr. Stack said, adding that doctors “need to reach people in their persuadable moment.”
Bringing pediatricians on board
Illinois state health officials have begun a process that will let pediatricians have weekly vaccination clinics and also have vaccine on hand to meet patients in the moment, said Ngozi Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, on the briefing.
She said the distribution can start even before the Pfizer vaccine is shipped in smaller packages – and as soon as the Food and Drug Administration authorizes the vaccine for adolescents. Pfizer applied for emergency use approval for children aged 12-15 on April 9.
Local health departments will store the vaccine in their ultra-cold freezers. Pediatricians will identify how many people they hope to vaccinate each week and receive the doses on Monday, with the understanding that they must use the vaccine within 5 days, said Dr. Ezike.
The aim is to support vaccination clinics but also to ensure doctors have “doses on hand,” so that a parent or adolescent could opt for vaccination during a visit.
Although estimating the number of doses required will be difficult and likely involve some waste, Dr. Ezike said it’s important to be able to offer a vaccine in the office instead of having to refer someone elsewhere.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care physicians and providers in small offices and clinics are going to be key to ensuring that the remaining half of the nation receives a COVID-19 vaccination, state health officials said Wednesday, and the federal government will soon start shipping smaller packages of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that can be more readily used by individual doctors.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of April 21, more than 215 million doses have been administered. About 40% – 134 million Americans – have had at least one dose of a vaccine.
Among those who still haven’t received a shot are people who don’t have the time, may be homebound, or who have questions about the vaccine, or might say they will never be vaccinated, said Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on a call with reporters.
Especially for those who fall into the “not-ever” category, state officials “are working to find trusted messengers like doctors” who can connect with these individuals and give them information, he said.
Primary care physicians’ offices and other small practice settings are “where we are most likely to reach many of the remaining 50%,” Steven Stack, MD, MBA, FACEP, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Public Health, said on the briefing.
State officials also “need to support all people to consult their personal physicians in whom they have confidence and trust to be informed of the benefits of COVID vaccination and the safety of this vaccination,” he said, adding that “this is the way we put this pandemic in the rearview mirror and move on with our lives.”
Dr. Stack said the federal government is starting by working with Pfizer to slim down its packages from 1,170 doses to 450 doses. That should happen before June, said Dr. Stack, adding that state health officials will be able to distribute the smaller packages “more widely and to smaller settings.”
Ideally, packaging for all vaccines will get down to single-dose, pre-filled syringes, he said. But that is a “journey” that the federal government has just begun, said Dr. Stack.
The White House had not responded to a request from this news organization for comment by press time.
Having vaccines onsite in a physician’s office is important, Dr. Stack said, adding that doctors “need to reach people in their persuadable moment.”
Bringing pediatricians on board
Illinois state health officials have begun a process that will let pediatricians have weekly vaccination clinics and also have vaccine on hand to meet patients in the moment, said Ngozi Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, on the briefing.
She said the distribution can start even before the Pfizer vaccine is shipped in smaller packages – and as soon as the Food and Drug Administration authorizes the vaccine for adolescents. Pfizer applied for emergency use approval for children aged 12-15 on April 9.
Local health departments will store the vaccine in their ultra-cold freezers. Pediatricians will identify how many people they hope to vaccinate each week and receive the doses on Monday, with the understanding that they must use the vaccine within 5 days, said Dr. Ezike.
The aim is to support vaccination clinics but also to ensure doctors have “doses on hand,” so that a parent or adolescent could opt for vaccination during a visit.
Although estimating the number of doses required will be difficult and likely involve some waste, Dr. Ezike said it’s important to be able to offer a vaccine in the office instead of having to refer someone elsewhere.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care physicians and providers in small offices and clinics are going to be key to ensuring that the remaining half of the nation receives a COVID-19 vaccination, state health officials said Wednesday, and the federal government will soon start shipping smaller packages of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that can be more readily used by individual doctors.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of April 21, more than 215 million doses have been administered. About 40% – 134 million Americans – have had at least one dose of a vaccine.
Among those who still haven’t received a shot are people who don’t have the time, may be homebound, or who have questions about the vaccine, or might say they will never be vaccinated, said Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on a call with reporters.
Especially for those who fall into the “not-ever” category, state officials “are working to find trusted messengers like doctors” who can connect with these individuals and give them information, he said.
Primary care physicians’ offices and other small practice settings are “where we are most likely to reach many of the remaining 50%,” Steven Stack, MD, MBA, FACEP, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Public Health, said on the briefing.
State officials also “need to support all people to consult their personal physicians in whom they have confidence and trust to be informed of the benefits of COVID vaccination and the safety of this vaccination,” he said, adding that “this is the way we put this pandemic in the rearview mirror and move on with our lives.”
Dr. Stack said the federal government is starting by working with Pfizer to slim down its packages from 1,170 doses to 450 doses. That should happen before June, said Dr. Stack, adding that state health officials will be able to distribute the smaller packages “more widely and to smaller settings.”
Ideally, packaging for all vaccines will get down to single-dose, pre-filled syringes, he said. But that is a “journey” that the federal government has just begun, said Dr. Stack.
The White House had not responded to a request from this news organization for comment by press time.
Having vaccines onsite in a physician’s office is important, Dr. Stack said, adding that doctors “need to reach people in their persuadable moment.”
Bringing pediatricians on board
Illinois state health officials have begun a process that will let pediatricians have weekly vaccination clinics and also have vaccine on hand to meet patients in the moment, said Ngozi Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, on the briefing.
She said the distribution can start even before the Pfizer vaccine is shipped in smaller packages – and as soon as the Food and Drug Administration authorizes the vaccine for adolescents. Pfizer applied for emergency use approval for children aged 12-15 on April 9.
Local health departments will store the vaccine in their ultra-cold freezers. Pediatricians will identify how many people they hope to vaccinate each week and receive the doses on Monday, with the understanding that they must use the vaccine within 5 days, said Dr. Ezike.
The aim is to support vaccination clinics but also to ensure doctors have “doses on hand,” so that a parent or adolescent could opt for vaccination during a visit.
Although estimating the number of doses required will be difficult and likely involve some waste, Dr. Ezike said it’s important to be able to offer a vaccine in the office instead of having to refer someone elsewhere.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.