A baby girl who was born 3 weeks after her mom got the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine has antibodies against the coronavirus, according to a preprint paper published on the medRxiv server Feb. 5. The paper hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

The mom, a health care worker in Florida, developed COVID-19 antibodies after she received the shot. Testing showed that the antibodies passed through the placenta to the baby.

“Maternal vaccination for influenza and TDaP have been well studied in terms of safety and efficacy for protection of the newborn by placental passage of antibodies,” Paul Gilbert, MD, and Chad Rudnick, MD, pediatricians and researchers at Florida Atlantic University, wrote in the paper.

Previous research has indicated that moms who have recovered from COVID-19 can deliver babies with antibodies, according to Insider, but this may be the first report that shows how vaccination during pregnancy can provide antibodies as well.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said they were fortunate to connect with the mom in Boca Raton. She hadn’t contracted COVID-19 and was able to get the vaccine at the end of her pregnancy in January. When the baby was born, they were able to test the cord blood to look for antibodies specifically from the vaccine.

“We were very excited to see, once the test result came back, that the antibodies from the mom’s vaccine did in fact pass through the placenta to the newborn,” Dr. Rudnick told WPTV, an NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach.

“We knew that we were going to be potentially one of the first in the world to report it, and that opportunity probably only comes once in a career,” Dr. Gilbert told WPTV.

In the preprint, Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said a “vigorous, healthy, full-term” baby was born, and the mom received the second dose of the Moderna vaccine during the postpartum period. The newborn received a normal “well-infant” evaluation and was breastfeeding.

The two doctors called for a “significant and urgent need” to research the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. They also encouraged other researchers to create pregnancy and breastfeeding registries to study COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding moms and newborns.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick are now preparing their research for publication and hope future studies will investigate the amount and length of antibody response in newborns.

“Total antibody measurements may be used to determine how long protection is expected, which may help to determine when the best time would be to begin vaccination,” they wrote.

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

A baby girl who was born 3 weeks after her mom got the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine has antibodies against the coronavirus, according to a preprint paper published on the medRxiv server Feb. 5. The paper hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

The mom, a health care worker in Florida, developed COVID-19 antibodies after she received the shot. Testing showed that the antibodies passed through the placenta to the baby.

“Maternal vaccination for influenza and TDaP have been well studied in terms of safety and efficacy for protection of the newborn by placental passage of antibodies,” Paul Gilbert, MD, and Chad Rudnick, MD, pediatricians and researchers at Florida Atlantic University, wrote in the paper.

Previous research has indicated that moms who have recovered from COVID-19 can deliver babies with antibodies, according to Insider, but this may be the first report that shows how vaccination during pregnancy can provide antibodies as well.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said they were fortunate to connect with the mom in Boca Raton. She hadn’t contracted COVID-19 and was able to get the vaccine at the end of her pregnancy in January. When the baby was born, they were able to test the cord blood to look for antibodies specifically from the vaccine.

“We were very excited to see, once the test result came back, that the antibodies from the mom’s vaccine did in fact pass through the placenta to the newborn,” Dr. Rudnick told WPTV, an NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach.

“We knew that we were going to be potentially one of the first in the world to report it, and that opportunity probably only comes once in a career,” Dr. Gilbert told WPTV.

In the preprint, Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said a “vigorous, healthy, full-term” baby was born, and the mom received the second dose of the Moderna vaccine during the postpartum period. The newborn received a normal “well-infant” evaluation and was breastfeeding.

The two doctors called for a “significant and urgent need” to research the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. They also encouraged other researchers to create pregnancy and breastfeeding registries to study COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding moms and newborns.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick are now preparing their research for publication and hope future studies will investigate the amount and length of antibody response in newborns.

“Total antibody measurements may be used to determine how long protection is expected, which may help to determine when the best time would be to begin vaccination,” they wrote.

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

A baby girl who was born 3 weeks after her mom got the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine has antibodies against the coronavirus, according to a preprint paper published on the medRxiv server Feb. 5. The paper hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

The mom, a health care worker in Florida, developed COVID-19 antibodies after she received the shot. Testing showed that the antibodies passed through the placenta to the baby.

“Maternal vaccination for influenza and TDaP have been well studied in terms of safety and efficacy for protection of the newborn by placental passage of antibodies,” Paul Gilbert, MD, and Chad Rudnick, MD, pediatricians and researchers at Florida Atlantic University, wrote in the paper.

Previous research has indicated that moms who have recovered from COVID-19 can deliver babies with antibodies, according to Insider, but this may be the first report that shows how vaccination during pregnancy can provide antibodies as well.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said they were fortunate to connect with the mom in Boca Raton. She hadn’t contracted COVID-19 and was able to get the vaccine at the end of her pregnancy in January. When the baby was born, they were able to test the cord blood to look for antibodies specifically from the vaccine.

“We were very excited to see, once the test result came back, that the antibodies from the mom’s vaccine did in fact pass through the placenta to the newborn,” Dr. Rudnick told WPTV, an NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach.

“We knew that we were going to be potentially one of the first in the world to report it, and that opportunity probably only comes once in a career,” Dr. Gilbert told WPTV.

In the preprint, Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick said a “vigorous, healthy, full-term” baby was born, and the mom received the second dose of the Moderna vaccine during the postpartum period. The newborn received a normal “well-infant” evaluation and was breastfeeding.

The two doctors called for a “significant and urgent need” to research the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. They also encouraged other researchers to create pregnancy and breastfeeding registries to study COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding moms and newborns.

Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Rudnick are now preparing their research for publication and hope future studies will investigate the amount and length of antibody response in newborns.

“Total antibody measurements may be used to determine how long protection is expected, which may help to determine when the best time would be to begin vaccination,” they wrote.

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

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid-use disorder (OUD) may also mitigate the risk associated with concomitant benzodiazepine and Z-drug use, which is frequent in this patient population, new research suggests.

A case-crossover study of more than 20,000 participants with OUD showed that drug treatment days in which benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were taken were associated with an 88% increase in nonfatal overdose; buprenorphine appeared to reduce this risk by almost 40%.

“One of our two primary findings is that patients with opioid use disorder can still benefit substantially from buprenorphine treatment, even if they have benzodiazepines on board,” lead author Kevin Xu, MD, a resident at the Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.

The other key finding was that “not all benzodiazepines are equal” and that some are associated with higher risk than others, Dr. Xu added.

“If anything, patients who are on buprenorphine and benzodiazepines do not necessarily need to be abruptly tapered off their benzodiazepines. Our data actually demonstrate that there are safe avenues for them,” he added.

The findings were published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Cloudy relationship

Buprenorphine is commonly used to treat patients with OUD because of its ability to decrease all-cause mortality. However, up to 30% of these patients also take benzodiazepines for comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, Dr. Xu noted.

In addition, recent research shows that benzodiazepine/Z-drug use is associated with a variety of potential adverse effects, including respiratory depression, overdose, and addiction risk.

The relationship between benzodiazepine use and buprenorphine treatment outcomes is poorly characterized in individuals with OUD. Although some studies suggest benzodiazepines may enhance retention in buprenorphine maintenance treatment, others suggest a link to increased adverse events, including all-cause mortality, drug-related poisonings, and accidental injury–related emergency department visits.

In addition, there has been little research on the potential adverse effects associated with use of selective benzodiazepine receptor modulators in patients with OUD. These so-called Z-drugs include zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone.

Nevertheless, previous research in the general population shows that these medications have a range of adverse effects similar to those of benzodiazepines, with comparable dose-response effects on all-cause mortality.

“The challenge for any clinician is that many patients who are addicted to opioids are also polysubstance users,” said Dr. Xu. “There are so many hopeful articles regarding the benefits of buprenorphine treatment in opioid use disorder patients, but it seems like the individuals with polysubstance use are largely ignored in the setting of the opioid epidemic.”

“And this is really the back story that got me inspired to study this particular topic,” he added.
 

Improve, nullify, or reverse?

Given these questions, the researchers set out to quantify the odds of nonfatal drug-related poisoning, including overdoses, associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug use by patients with OUD who were also taking buprenorphine.

“While the drug-related poisoning variable encompasses opioid overdoses, we used a broad definition per CDC guidelines to also include other types of drug overdoses – including poisoning events involving stimulants, overdoses involving sedatives, and overdoses involving psychotropic prescription drugs” that are commonly used by patients with OUD, said Dr. Xu.

They also wanted to determine whether the use of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs would improve, nullify, or reverse the protective effect of buprenorphine. The researchers also evaluated whether different sedative and hypnotic subtypes of these drugs were associated with different poisoning risks.

The researchers analyzed pharmaceutical claims data from 304,676 individuals (aged 12-64 years) in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid Databases. All had received buprenorphine treatment for OUD between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016.

Buprenorphine use was converted to a daily milligram dose and was classified as either greater than 12 mg or less than or equal to 12 mg, because previous research suggests there may be differences in treatment retention associated with this dose. Given the case-control nature of the investigation, patients who did not experience a drug-related poisoning were excluded from the analysis.

The study’s primary unit of observation was person-days, which were those days during which patients were enrolled in a health insurance plan. Participants were evaluated for 1 year before their first drug-related poisoning and 1 year after their first such poisoning. The primary outcome was nonfatal drug-related poisonings, including overdoses. The primary exposure was determined on the basis of benzodiazepine or Z-drug prescriptions.

The daily dose of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs was standardized as a function of diazepam-equivalent milligrams. Doses were classified as either high dose (diazepam-equivalent mg dose >30 mg) or low dose (≤30 mg). The drugs were also distinguished on the basis of their pharmacologic properties, such as whether they were short-acting or long-acting.
 

37% risk reduction

Of the original cohort of 304,676 patients with OUD, the study’s final analytic sample included 23,036 patients (mean age, 30 years; 51% men), representing 14,213,075 person-days of insurance coverage. Of these, 2,210,927 person-days (15.6%) entailed claims for buprenorphine (mean daily dose, 15.4 mg; SD, 7.31 mg).

A total of 474,181 person-days included claims for benzodiazepines or Z-drugs with concurrent buprenorphine treatment. The mean daily dose of any benzodiazepine or Z-drug was 23.4 diazepam-milligram equivalents. The mean daily dose of short-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and Z-drugs was 25.3, 31.3, and 4.9 diazepam-milligram equivalents, respectively.

Buprenorphine treatment days were associated with a 37% lower chance of drug-related poisoning (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66) in comparison with nontreatment days. On the other hand, the odds of poisoning increased by 81% on days on which patients were treated with Z-drugs or benzodiazepines (95% CI, 1.73-1.91).

Interestingly, individual analyses showed that benzodiazepine and Z-drug treatment days were associated with increased odds of poisoning events (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Odds of poisoning events on benzodiazepine-only treatment days, on the other hand, were markedly lower (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.78-1.98).

Subgroup analyses revealed that both short-acting and long-acting benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with comparably elevated odds of drug-related poisoning (OR, 1.86 and 1.68, respectively). High-dose benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with higher increased odds of a poisoning event (122%) in comparison with low-dose treatment days (78%).

High-dose, but not low-dose, benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment was linked to increased poisonings when the drug was taken concurrently with buprenorphine (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.39-1.93). However, the risk was still lower than the risk associated with taking the agents without concurrent treatment with buprenorphine (low-dose OR, 1.69; high-dose OR, 2.23).
 

‘Not all benzodiazepines are bad’

Dr. Xu noted that the findings have potentially important implications for clinical practice, beginning with the dose-dependent relationship between benzodiazepine/Z-drug use and drug-related poisonings among individuals with OUD. This indicates that lowering doses or shortening treatment duration may reduce risk, he said.

Similarly, the lower risk associated with long-acting benzodiazepines relative to short-acting beonzodiazepines – as well as the substantially lower risk associated with Z-drugs, compared with either short- or long-acting benzodiazepines – suggests that switching from benzodiazepines to long-acting agents or Z-drugs may lower the risk for overdose, he added.

“Clinicians are often challenged by patients with opioid use disorder who are also on benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. There’s an inclination to say no to them, because they’re too high risk to start buprenorphine maintenance, or abruptly taper the benzodiazepines, which can be very destabilizing,” he noted.

“Our data show that people on benzodiazepines can absolutely receive buprenorphine and still get some benefit,” Dr. Xu said. “In addition, not all benzodiazepines are bad for these individuals. There are safer formulations and safer doses, too.”

However, he added, he would not initiate benzodiazepine treatment if he didn’t have to, especially long-term treatment.

“One of the messages from our data is that this clearly contributes to higher overdose risk. But we often inherit patients who already have benzodiazepines on board, so we need to figure out what to do. That is the question that nobody had really clearly addressed prior to this study,” Dr. Xu concluded.
 

Vigilance needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, MD, Stanley Cobb Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, urged caution when combining benzodiazepines with opioids.

“There are situations where you need to be circumspect about the use of benzodiazepines, and that’s clearly when people are being prescribed them in combination with other drugs that could be either sedating or respiratory depressant,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who was not involved with the research.

“This paper reminds us that physicians need to be particularly vigilant about situations where patients might be combining the two agents,” he added.

Dr. Rosenbaum noted that patients who are using more medication than prescribed are at risk “for not appreciating the synergy” between the two treatments in terms of adverse events such as respiratory depression.

In addition, “if they’re intending to do themselves harm, the lethality of an overdose will be certainly far more than the benzodiazepines or opiates alone,” he said.

Another potential challenge for clinicians are situations in which patients are taking benzodiazepines for preexisting conditions that also require opiates. “Then you have to use special vigilance and try to use lowest doses to reduce the total burden of medication to minimize the potential risk,” said Dr. Rosenbaum.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Xu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid-use disorder (OUD) may also mitigate the risk associated with concomitant benzodiazepine and Z-drug use, which is frequent in this patient population, new research suggests.

A case-crossover study of more than 20,000 participants with OUD showed that drug treatment days in which benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were taken were associated with an 88% increase in nonfatal overdose; buprenorphine appeared to reduce this risk by almost 40%.

“One of our two primary findings is that patients with opioid use disorder can still benefit substantially from buprenorphine treatment, even if they have benzodiazepines on board,” lead author Kevin Xu, MD, a resident at the Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.

The other key finding was that “not all benzodiazepines are equal” and that some are associated with higher risk than others, Dr. Xu added.

“If anything, patients who are on buprenorphine and benzodiazepines do not necessarily need to be abruptly tapered off their benzodiazepines. Our data actually demonstrate that there are safe avenues for them,” he added.

The findings were published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Cloudy relationship

Buprenorphine is commonly used to treat patients with OUD because of its ability to decrease all-cause mortality. However, up to 30% of these patients also take benzodiazepines for comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, Dr. Xu noted.

In addition, recent research shows that benzodiazepine/Z-drug use is associated with a variety of potential adverse effects, including respiratory depression, overdose, and addiction risk.

The relationship between benzodiazepine use and buprenorphine treatment outcomes is poorly characterized in individuals with OUD. Although some studies suggest benzodiazepines may enhance retention in buprenorphine maintenance treatment, others suggest a link to increased adverse events, including all-cause mortality, drug-related poisonings, and accidental injury–related emergency department visits.

In addition, there has been little research on the potential adverse effects associated with use of selective benzodiazepine receptor modulators in patients with OUD. These so-called Z-drugs include zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone.

Nevertheless, previous research in the general population shows that these medications have a range of adverse effects similar to those of benzodiazepines, with comparable dose-response effects on all-cause mortality.

“The challenge for any clinician is that many patients who are addicted to opioids are also polysubstance users,” said Dr. Xu. “There are so many hopeful articles regarding the benefits of buprenorphine treatment in opioid use disorder patients, but it seems like the individuals with polysubstance use are largely ignored in the setting of the opioid epidemic.”

“And this is really the back story that got me inspired to study this particular topic,” he added.
 

Improve, nullify, or reverse?

Given these questions, the researchers set out to quantify the odds of nonfatal drug-related poisoning, including overdoses, associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug use by patients with OUD who were also taking buprenorphine.

“While the drug-related poisoning variable encompasses opioid overdoses, we used a broad definition per CDC guidelines to also include other types of drug overdoses – including poisoning events involving stimulants, overdoses involving sedatives, and overdoses involving psychotropic prescription drugs” that are commonly used by patients with OUD, said Dr. Xu.

They also wanted to determine whether the use of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs would improve, nullify, or reverse the protective effect of buprenorphine. The researchers also evaluated whether different sedative and hypnotic subtypes of these drugs were associated with different poisoning risks.

The researchers analyzed pharmaceutical claims data from 304,676 individuals (aged 12-64 years) in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid Databases. All had received buprenorphine treatment for OUD between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016.

Buprenorphine use was converted to a daily milligram dose and was classified as either greater than 12 mg or less than or equal to 12 mg, because previous research suggests there may be differences in treatment retention associated with this dose. Given the case-control nature of the investigation, patients who did not experience a drug-related poisoning were excluded from the analysis.

The study’s primary unit of observation was person-days, which were those days during which patients were enrolled in a health insurance plan. Participants were evaluated for 1 year before their first drug-related poisoning and 1 year after their first such poisoning. The primary outcome was nonfatal drug-related poisonings, including overdoses. The primary exposure was determined on the basis of benzodiazepine or Z-drug prescriptions.

The daily dose of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs was standardized as a function of diazepam-equivalent milligrams. Doses were classified as either high dose (diazepam-equivalent mg dose >30 mg) or low dose (≤30 mg). The drugs were also distinguished on the basis of their pharmacologic properties, such as whether they were short-acting or long-acting.
 

37% risk reduction

Of the original cohort of 304,676 patients with OUD, the study’s final analytic sample included 23,036 patients (mean age, 30 years; 51% men), representing 14,213,075 person-days of insurance coverage. Of these, 2,210,927 person-days (15.6%) entailed claims for buprenorphine (mean daily dose, 15.4 mg; SD, 7.31 mg).

A total of 474,181 person-days included claims for benzodiazepines or Z-drugs with concurrent buprenorphine treatment. The mean daily dose of any benzodiazepine or Z-drug was 23.4 diazepam-milligram equivalents. The mean daily dose of short-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and Z-drugs was 25.3, 31.3, and 4.9 diazepam-milligram equivalents, respectively.

Buprenorphine treatment days were associated with a 37% lower chance of drug-related poisoning (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66) in comparison with nontreatment days. On the other hand, the odds of poisoning increased by 81% on days on which patients were treated with Z-drugs or benzodiazepines (95% CI, 1.73-1.91).

Interestingly, individual analyses showed that benzodiazepine and Z-drug treatment days were associated with increased odds of poisoning events (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Odds of poisoning events on benzodiazepine-only treatment days, on the other hand, were markedly lower (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.78-1.98).

Subgroup analyses revealed that both short-acting and long-acting benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with comparably elevated odds of drug-related poisoning (OR, 1.86 and 1.68, respectively). High-dose benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with higher increased odds of a poisoning event (122%) in comparison with low-dose treatment days (78%).

High-dose, but not low-dose, benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment was linked to increased poisonings when the drug was taken concurrently with buprenorphine (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.39-1.93). However, the risk was still lower than the risk associated with taking the agents without concurrent treatment with buprenorphine (low-dose OR, 1.69; high-dose OR, 2.23).
 

‘Not all benzodiazepines are bad’

Dr. Xu noted that the findings have potentially important implications for clinical practice, beginning with the dose-dependent relationship between benzodiazepine/Z-drug use and drug-related poisonings among individuals with OUD. This indicates that lowering doses or shortening treatment duration may reduce risk, he said.

Similarly, the lower risk associated with long-acting benzodiazepines relative to short-acting beonzodiazepines – as well as the substantially lower risk associated with Z-drugs, compared with either short- or long-acting benzodiazepines – suggests that switching from benzodiazepines to long-acting agents or Z-drugs may lower the risk for overdose, he added.

“Clinicians are often challenged by patients with opioid use disorder who are also on benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. There’s an inclination to say no to them, because they’re too high risk to start buprenorphine maintenance, or abruptly taper the benzodiazepines, which can be very destabilizing,” he noted.

“Our data show that people on benzodiazepines can absolutely receive buprenorphine and still get some benefit,” Dr. Xu said. “In addition, not all benzodiazepines are bad for these individuals. There are safer formulations and safer doses, too.”

However, he added, he would not initiate benzodiazepine treatment if he didn’t have to, especially long-term treatment.

“One of the messages from our data is that this clearly contributes to higher overdose risk. But we often inherit patients who already have benzodiazepines on board, so we need to figure out what to do. That is the question that nobody had really clearly addressed prior to this study,” Dr. Xu concluded.
 

Vigilance needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, MD, Stanley Cobb Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, urged caution when combining benzodiazepines with opioids.

“There are situations where you need to be circumspect about the use of benzodiazepines, and that’s clearly when people are being prescribed them in combination with other drugs that could be either sedating or respiratory depressant,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who was not involved with the research.

“This paper reminds us that physicians need to be particularly vigilant about situations where patients might be combining the two agents,” he added.

Dr. Rosenbaum noted that patients who are using more medication than prescribed are at risk “for not appreciating the synergy” between the two treatments in terms of adverse events such as respiratory depression.

In addition, “if they’re intending to do themselves harm, the lethality of an overdose will be certainly far more than the benzodiazepines or opiates alone,” he said.

Another potential challenge for clinicians are situations in which patients are taking benzodiazepines for preexisting conditions that also require opiates. “Then you have to use special vigilance and try to use lowest doses to reduce the total burden of medication to minimize the potential risk,” said Dr. Rosenbaum.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Xu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid-use disorder (OUD) may also mitigate the risk associated with concomitant benzodiazepine and Z-drug use, which is frequent in this patient population, new research suggests.

A case-crossover study of more than 20,000 participants with OUD showed that drug treatment days in which benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were taken were associated with an 88% increase in nonfatal overdose; buprenorphine appeared to reduce this risk by almost 40%.

“One of our two primary findings is that patients with opioid use disorder can still benefit substantially from buprenorphine treatment, even if they have benzodiazepines on board,” lead author Kevin Xu, MD, a resident at the Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.

The other key finding was that “not all benzodiazepines are equal” and that some are associated with higher risk than others, Dr. Xu added.

“If anything, patients who are on buprenorphine and benzodiazepines do not necessarily need to be abruptly tapered off their benzodiazepines. Our data actually demonstrate that there are safe avenues for them,” he added.

The findings were published online March 3 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Cloudy relationship

Buprenorphine is commonly used to treat patients with OUD because of its ability to decrease all-cause mortality. However, up to 30% of these patients also take benzodiazepines for comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, Dr. Xu noted.

In addition, recent research shows that benzodiazepine/Z-drug use is associated with a variety of potential adverse effects, including respiratory depression, overdose, and addiction risk.

The relationship between benzodiazepine use and buprenorphine treatment outcomes is poorly characterized in individuals with OUD. Although some studies suggest benzodiazepines may enhance retention in buprenorphine maintenance treatment, others suggest a link to increased adverse events, including all-cause mortality, drug-related poisonings, and accidental injury–related emergency department visits.

In addition, there has been little research on the potential adverse effects associated with use of selective benzodiazepine receptor modulators in patients with OUD. These so-called Z-drugs include zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone.

Nevertheless, previous research in the general population shows that these medications have a range of adverse effects similar to those of benzodiazepines, with comparable dose-response effects on all-cause mortality.

“The challenge for any clinician is that many patients who are addicted to opioids are also polysubstance users,” said Dr. Xu. “There are so many hopeful articles regarding the benefits of buprenorphine treatment in opioid use disorder patients, but it seems like the individuals with polysubstance use are largely ignored in the setting of the opioid epidemic.”

“And this is really the back story that got me inspired to study this particular topic,” he added.
 

Improve, nullify, or reverse?

Given these questions, the researchers set out to quantify the odds of nonfatal drug-related poisoning, including overdoses, associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug use by patients with OUD who were also taking buprenorphine.

“While the drug-related poisoning variable encompasses opioid overdoses, we used a broad definition per CDC guidelines to also include other types of drug overdoses – including poisoning events involving stimulants, overdoses involving sedatives, and overdoses involving psychotropic prescription drugs” that are commonly used by patients with OUD, said Dr. Xu.

They also wanted to determine whether the use of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs would improve, nullify, or reverse the protective effect of buprenorphine. The researchers also evaluated whether different sedative and hypnotic subtypes of these drugs were associated with different poisoning risks.

The researchers analyzed pharmaceutical claims data from 304,676 individuals (aged 12-64 years) in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid Databases. All had received buprenorphine treatment for OUD between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016.

Buprenorphine use was converted to a daily milligram dose and was classified as either greater than 12 mg or less than or equal to 12 mg, because previous research suggests there may be differences in treatment retention associated with this dose. Given the case-control nature of the investigation, patients who did not experience a drug-related poisoning were excluded from the analysis.

The study’s primary unit of observation was person-days, which were those days during which patients were enrolled in a health insurance plan. Participants were evaluated for 1 year before their first drug-related poisoning and 1 year after their first such poisoning. The primary outcome was nonfatal drug-related poisonings, including overdoses. The primary exposure was determined on the basis of benzodiazepine or Z-drug prescriptions.

The daily dose of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs was standardized as a function of diazepam-equivalent milligrams. Doses were classified as either high dose (diazepam-equivalent mg dose >30 mg) or low dose (≤30 mg). The drugs were also distinguished on the basis of their pharmacologic properties, such as whether they were short-acting or long-acting.
 

37% risk reduction

Of the original cohort of 304,676 patients with OUD, the study’s final analytic sample included 23,036 patients (mean age, 30 years; 51% men), representing 14,213,075 person-days of insurance coverage. Of these, 2,210,927 person-days (15.6%) entailed claims for buprenorphine (mean daily dose, 15.4 mg; SD, 7.31 mg).

A total of 474,181 person-days included claims for benzodiazepines or Z-drugs with concurrent buprenorphine treatment. The mean daily dose of any benzodiazepine or Z-drug was 23.4 diazepam-milligram equivalents. The mean daily dose of short-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and Z-drugs was 25.3, 31.3, and 4.9 diazepam-milligram equivalents, respectively.

Buprenorphine treatment days were associated with a 37% lower chance of drug-related poisoning (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66) in comparison with nontreatment days. On the other hand, the odds of poisoning increased by 81% on days on which patients were treated with Z-drugs or benzodiazepines (95% CI, 1.73-1.91).

Interestingly, individual analyses showed that benzodiazepine and Z-drug treatment days were associated with increased odds of poisoning events (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Odds of poisoning events on benzodiazepine-only treatment days, on the other hand, were markedly lower (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.78-1.98).

Subgroup analyses revealed that both short-acting and long-acting benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with comparably elevated odds of drug-related poisoning (OR, 1.86 and 1.68, respectively). High-dose benzodiazepine treatment days were associated with higher increased odds of a poisoning event (122%) in comparison with low-dose treatment days (78%).

High-dose, but not low-dose, benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment was linked to increased poisonings when the drug was taken concurrently with buprenorphine (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.39-1.93). However, the risk was still lower than the risk associated with taking the agents without concurrent treatment with buprenorphine (low-dose OR, 1.69; high-dose OR, 2.23).
 

‘Not all benzodiazepines are bad’

Dr. Xu noted that the findings have potentially important implications for clinical practice, beginning with the dose-dependent relationship between benzodiazepine/Z-drug use and drug-related poisonings among individuals with OUD. This indicates that lowering doses or shortening treatment duration may reduce risk, he said.

Similarly, the lower risk associated with long-acting benzodiazepines relative to short-acting beonzodiazepines – as well as the substantially lower risk associated with Z-drugs, compared with either short- or long-acting benzodiazepines – suggests that switching from benzodiazepines to long-acting agents or Z-drugs may lower the risk for overdose, he added.

“Clinicians are often challenged by patients with opioid use disorder who are also on benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. There’s an inclination to say no to them, because they’re too high risk to start buprenorphine maintenance, or abruptly taper the benzodiazepines, which can be very destabilizing,” he noted.

“Our data show that people on benzodiazepines can absolutely receive buprenorphine and still get some benefit,” Dr. Xu said. “In addition, not all benzodiazepines are bad for these individuals. There are safer formulations and safer doses, too.”

However, he added, he would not initiate benzodiazepine treatment if he didn’t have to, especially long-term treatment.

“One of the messages from our data is that this clearly contributes to higher overdose risk. But we often inherit patients who already have benzodiazepines on board, so we need to figure out what to do. That is the question that nobody had really clearly addressed prior to this study,” Dr. Xu concluded.
 

Vigilance needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, MD, Stanley Cobb Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, urged caution when combining benzodiazepines with opioids.

“There are situations where you need to be circumspect about the use of benzodiazepines, and that’s clearly when people are being prescribed them in combination with other drugs that could be either sedating or respiratory depressant,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who was not involved with the research.

“This paper reminds us that physicians need to be particularly vigilant about situations where patients might be combining the two agents,” he added.

Dr. Rosenbaum noted that patients who are using more medication than prescribed are at risk “for not appreciating the synergy” between the two treatments in terms of adverse events such as respiratory depression.

In addition, “if they’re intending to do themselves harm, the lethality of an overdose will be certainly far more than the benzodiazepines or opiates alone,” he said.

Another potential challenge for clinicians are situations in which patients are taking benzodiazepines for preexisting conditions that also require opiates. “Then you have to use special vigilance and try to use lowest doses to reduce the total burden of medication to minimize the potential risk,” said Dr. Rosenbaum.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Xu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Many countries have “a long way to go” toward meeting the World Health Organization’s target for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination, according to researchers.

The WHO’s goal is to have HPV vaccines delivered to 90% of all adolescent girls by 2030, part of the organization’s larger goal to “eliminate” cervical cancer, or reduce the annual incidence of cervical cancer to below 4 cases per 100,000 people globally.

Laia Bruni, MD, PhD, of Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and colleagues outlined the progress made thus far toward reaching the WHO’s goals in an article published in Preventive Medicine.

The authors noted that cervical cancer caused by HPV is a “major public health problem, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).”

However, vaccines against HPV have been available since 2006 and have been recommended by the WHO since 2009.

HPV vaccines have been introduced into many national immunization schedules. Among the 194 WHO member states, 107 (55%) had introduced HPV vaccination as of June 2020, according to estimates from the WHO and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).

Still, vaccine introduction and coverages are suboptimal, according to several studies and international agencies.

In their article, Dr. Bruni and colleagues describe the mid-2020 status of HPV vaccine introduction, based on WHO/UNICEF estimates of national HPV immunization coverage from 2010 to 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by region

The Americas and Europe are by far the WHO regions with the highest rates of HPV vaccination, with 85% and 77% of their countries, respectively, having already introduced HPV vaccination, either partially or nationwide.

In 2019, a record number of introductions, 16, were reported, mostly in LMICs where access has been limited. In prior years, the average had been a relatively steady 7-8 introductions per year.

The percentage of high-income countries (HICs) that have introduced HPV vaccination exceeds 80%. LMICs started introducing HPV vaccination later and at a slower pace, compared with HICs. By the end of 2019, only 41% of LMICs had introduced vaccination. However, of the new introductions in 2019, 87% were in LMICs.

In 2019, the average performance coverage for HPV vaccination programs in 99 countries (both HICs and LMICs) was around 67% for the first vaccine dose and 53% for the final dose.

Median performance coverage was higher in LMICs than in HICs for the first dose (80% and 72%, respectively), but mean dropout rates were higher in LMICs than in HICs (18% and 11%, respectively).

Coverage of more than 90% was achieved for the last dose in only five countries (6%). Twenty-two countries (21%) achieved coverages of 75% or higher, while 35 countries (40%) had final dose coverages of 50% or less.

Global coverage of the final HPV vaccine dose (weighted by population size) was estimated at 15%. According to the authors, that low percentage can be explained by the fact that many of the most populous countries have either not yet introduced HPV vaccination or have low performance.

The countries with highest cervical cancer burden have had limited secondary prevention and have been less likely to provide access to vaccination, the authors noted. However, this trend appears to be reversing, with 14 new LMICs providing HPV vaccination in 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by sex

By 2019, almost a third of the 107 HPV vaccination programs (n = 33) were “gender neutral,” with girls and boys receiving HPV vaccines. Generally, LMICs targeted younger girls (9-10 years) compared with HICs (11-13 years).

Dr. Bruni and colleagues estimated that 15% of girls and 4% of boys were vaccinated globally with the full course of vaccine. At least one dose was received by 20% of girls and 5% of boys.

From 2010 to 2019, HPV vaccination rates in HICs rose from 42% in girls and 0% in boys to 88% and 44%, respectively. In LMICs, over the same period, rates rose from 4% in girls and 0% in boys to 40% and 5%, respectively.
 

Obstacles and the path forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has halted HPV vaccine delivery in the majority of countries, Dr. Bruni and colleagues noted. About 70 countries had reported program interruptions by August 2020, and delays to HPV vaccine introductions were anticipated for other countries.

An economic downturn could have further far-reaching effects on plans to introduce HPV vaccines, Dr. Bruni and colleagues observed.

While meeting the 2030 target will be challenging, the authors noted that, in every geographic area, some programs are meeting the 90% target.

“HPV national programs should aim to get 90+% of girls vaccinated before the age of 15,” Dr. Bruni said in an interview. “This is a feasible goal, and some countries have succeeded, such as Norway and Rwanda. Average performance, however, is around 55%, and that shows that it is not an easy task.”

Dr. Bruni underscored the four main actions that should be taken to achieve 90% coverage of HPV vaccination, as outlined in the WHO cervical cancer elimination strategy:

• Secure sufficient and affordable HPV vaccines.
• Increase the quality and coverage of vaccination.
• Improve communication and social mobilization.
• Innovate to improve efficiency of vaccine delivery.

“Addressing vaccine hesitancy adequately is one of the biggest challenges we face, especially for the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Bruni said. “As the WHO document states, understanding social, cultural, societal, and other barriers affecting acceptance and uptake of the vaccine will be critical for overcoming vaccine hesitancy and countering misinformation.”

This research was funded by a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III and various other grants. Dr. Bruni and coauthors said they have no relevant disclosures.

Many countries have “a long way to go” toward meeting the World Health Organization’s target for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination, according to researchers.

The WHO’s goal is to have HPV vaccines delivered to 90% of all adolescent girls by 2030, part of the organization’s larger goal to “eliminate” cervical cancer, or reduce the annual incidence of cervical cancer to below 4 cases per 100,000 people globally.

Laia Bruni, MD, PhD, of Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and colleagues outlined the progress made thus far toward reaching the WHO’s goals in an article published in Preventive Medicine.

The authors noted that cervical cancer caused by HPV is a “major public health problem, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).”

However, vaccines against HPV have been available since 2006 and have been recommended by the WHO since 2009.

HPV vaccines have been introduced into many national immunization schedules. Among the 194 WHO member states, 107 (55%) had introduced HPV vaccination as of June 2020, according to estimates from the WHO and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).

Still, vaccine introduction and coverages are suboptimal, according to several studies and international agencies.

In their article, Dr. Bruni and colleagues describe the mid-2020 status of HPV vaccine introduction, based on WHO/UNICEF estimates of national HPV immunization coverage from 2010 to 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by region

The Americas and Europe are by far the WHO regions with the highest rates of HPV vaccination, with 85% and 77% of their countries, respectively, having already introduced HPV vaccination, either partially or nationwide.

In 2019, a record number of introductions, 16, were reported, mostly in LMICs where access has been limited. In prior years, the average had been a relatively steady 7-8 introductions per year.

The percentage of high-income countries (HICs) that have introduced HPV vaccination exceeds 80%. LMICs started introducing HPV vaccination later and at a slower pace, compared with HICs. By the end of 2019, only 41% of LMICs had introduced vaccination. However, of the new introductions in 2019, 87% were in LMICs.

In 2019, the average performance coverage for HPV vaccination programs in 99 countries (both HICs and LMICs) was around 67% for the first vaccine dose and 53% for the final dose.

Median performance coverage was higher in LMICs than in HICs for the first dose (80% and 72%, respectively), but mean dropout rates were higher in LMICs than in HICs (18% and 11%, respectively).

Coverage of more than 90% was achieved for the last dose in only five countries (6%). Twenty-two countries (21%) achieved coverages of 75% or higher, while 35 countries (40%) had final dose coverages of 50% or less.

Global coverage of the final HPV vaccine dose (weighted by population size) was estimated at 15%. According to the authors, that low percentage can be explained by the fact that many of the most populous countries have either not yet introduced HPV vaccination or have low performance.

The countries with highest cervical cancer burden have had limited secondary prevention and have been less likely to provide access to vaccination, the authors noted. However, this trend appears to be reversing, with 14 new LMICs providing HPV vaccination in 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by sex

By 2019, almost a third of the 107 HPV vaccination programs (n = 33) were “gender neutral,” with girls and boys receiving HPV vaccines. Generally, LMICs targeted younger girls (9-10 years) compared with HICs (11-13 years).

Dr. Bruni and colleagues estimated that 15% of girls and 4% of boys were vaccinated globally with the full course of vaccine. At least one dose was received by 20% of girls and 5% of boys.

From 2010 to 2019, HPV vaccination rates in HICs rose from 42% in girls and 0% in boys to 88% and 44%, respectively. In LMICs, over the same period, rates rose from 4% in girls and 0% in boys to 40% and 5%, respectively.
 

Obstacles and the path forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has halted HPV vaccine delivery in the majority of countries, Dr. Bruni and colleagues noted. About 70 countries had reported program interruptions by August 2020, and delays to HPV vaccine introductions were anticipated for other countries.

An economic downturn could have further far-reaching effects on plans to introduce HPV vaccines, Dr. Bruni and colleagues observed.

While meeting the 2030 target will be challenging, the authors noted that, in every geographic area, some programs are meeting the 90% target.

“HPV national programs should aim to get 90+% of girls vaccinated before the age of 15,” Dr. Bruni said in an interview. “This is a feasible goal, and some countries have succeeded, such as Norway and Rwanda. Average performance, however, is around 55%, and that shows that it is not an easy task.”

Dr. Bruni underscored the four main actions that should be taken to achieve 90% coverage of HPV vaccination, as outlined in the WHO cervical cancer elimination strategy:

• Secure sufficient and affordable HPV vaccines.
• Increase the quality and coverage of vaccination.
• Improve communication and social mobilization.
• Innovate to improve efficiency of vaccine delivery.

“Addressing vaccine hesitancy adequately is one of the biggest challenges we face, especially for the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Bruni said. “As the WHO document states, understanding social, cultural, societal, and other barriers affecting acceptance and uptake of the vaccine will be critical for overcoming vaccine hesitancy and countering misinformation.”

This research was funded by a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III and various other grants. Dr. Bruni and coauthors said they have no relevant disclosures.

Many countries have “a long way to go” toward meeting the World Health Organization’s target for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination, according to researchers.

The WHO’s goal is to have HPV vaccines delivered to 90% of all adolescent girls by 2030, part of the organization’s larger goal to “eliminate” cervical cancer, or reduce the annual incidence of cervical cancer to below 4 cases per 100,000 people globally.

Laia Bruni, MD, PhD, of Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and colleagues outlined the progress made thus far toward reaching the WHO’s goals in an article published in Preventive Medicine.

The authors noted that cervical cancer caused by HPV is a “major public health problem, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).”

However, vaccines against HPV have been available since 2006 and have been recommended by the WHO since 2009.

HPV vaccines have been introduced into many national immunization schedules. Among the 194 WHO member states, 107 (55%) had introduced HPV vaccination as of June 2020, according to estimates from the WHO and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).

Still, vaccine introduction and coverages are suboptimal, according to several studies and international agencies.

In their article, Dr. Bruni and colleagues describe the mid-2020 status of HPV vaccine introduction, based on WHO/UNICEF estimates of national HPV immunization coverage from 2010 to 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by region

The Americas and Europe are by far the WHO regions with the highest rates of HPV vaccination, with 85% and 77% of their countries, respectively, having already introduced HPV vaccination, either partially or nationwide.

In 2019, a record number of introductions, 16, were reported, mostly in LMICs where access has been limited. In prior years, the average had been a relatively steady 7-8 introductions per year.

The percentage of high-income countries (HICs) that have introduced HPV vaccination exceeds 80%. LMICs started introducing HPV vaccination later and at a slower pace, compared with HICs. By the end of 2019, only 41% of LMICs had introduced vaccination. However, of the new introductions in 2019, 87% were in LMICs.

In 2019, the average performance coverage for HPV vaccination programs in 99 countries (both HICs and LMICs) was around 67% for the first vaccine dose and 53% for the final dose.

Median performance coverage was higher in LMICs than in HICs for the first dose (80% and 72%, respectively), but mean dropout rates were higher in LMICs than in HICs (18% and 11%, respectively).

Coverage of more than 90% was achieved for the last dose in only five countries (6%). Twenty-two countries (21%) achieved coverages of 75% or higher, while 35 countries (40%) had final dose coverages of 50% or less.

Global coverage of the final HPV vaccine dose (weighted by population size) was estimated at 15%. According to the authors, that low percentage can be explained by the fact that many of the most populous countries have either not yet introduced HPV vaccination or have low performance.

The countries with highest cervical cancer burden have had limited secondary prevention and have been less likely to provide access to vaccination, the authors noted. However, this trend appears to be reversing, with 14 new LMICs providing HPV vaccination in 2019.
 

HPV vaccination by sex

By 2019, almost a third of the 107 HPV vaccination programs (n = 33) were “gender neutral,” with girls and boys receiving HPV vaccines. Generally, LMICs targeted younger girls (9-10 years) compared with HICs (11-13 years).

Dr. Bruni and colleagues estimated that 15% of girls and 4% of boys were vaccinated globally with the full course of vaccine. At least one dose was received by 20% of girls and 5% of boys.

From 2010 to 2019, HPV vaccination rates in HICs rose from 42% in girls and 0% in boys to 88% and 44%, respectively. In LMICs, over the same period, rates rose from 4% in girls and 0% in boys to 40% and 5%, respectively.
 

Obstacles and the path forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has halted HPV vaccine delivery in the majority of countries, Dr. Bruni and colleagues noted. About 70 countries had reported program interruptions by August 2020, and delays to HPV vaccine introductions were anticipated for other countries.

An economic downturn could have further far-reaching effects on plans to introduce HPV vaccines, Dr. Bruni and colleagues observed.

While meeting the 2030 target will be challenging, the authors noted that, in every geographic area, some programs are meeting the 90% target.

“HPV national programs should aim to get 90+% of girls vaccinated before the age of 15,” Dr. Bruni said in an interview. “This is a feasible goal, and some countries have succeeded, such as Norway and Rwanda. Average performance, however, is around 55%, and that shows that it is not an easy task.”

Dr. Bruni underscored the four main actions that should be taken to achieve 90% coverage of HPV vaccination, as outlined in the WHO cervical cancer elimination strategy:

• Secure sufficient and affordable HPV vaccines.
• Increase the quality and coverage of vaccination.
• Improve communication and social mobilization.
• Innovate to improve efficiency of vaccine delivery.

“Addressing vaccine hesitancy adequately is one of the biggest challenges we face, especially for the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Bruni said. “As the WHO document states, understanding social, cultural, societal, and other barriers affecting acceptance and uptake of the vaccine will be critical for overcoming vaccine hesitancy and countering misinformation.”

This research was funded by a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III and various other grants. Dr. Bruni and coauthors said they have no relevant disclosures.

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.