Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: Resumption of AC or AP therapy for patients following a GIB represents a common clinical challenge. Interruption of these medications following a GIB is associated with increased risk of macrovascular events, thrombosis, morbidity, and death. Prior studies have found inconsistent risk of rebleeding and death with resumption of these therapies following GIB. Little evidence exists for long-term outcomes and optimal timing of AC and AP resumption.

Although resumption of AC or AP following a GIB increased bleeding risk, this may be outweighed by reductions in ischemic events and death if these agents are continued. For hospitalist clinicians, this remains a nuanced and patient-centered decision.

Interpretation is limited by variability in GIB location, agents used, and timing of resumption. Also, the study population included a limited number of elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and high overall death rate.

Bottom line: Resuming AC and AP medications following gastrointestinal bleeding doubled the rebleeding risk but lowered the risk of ischemic events and death, compared with the discontinuation of these medications.

Citation: Sostres C et al. Risk of rebleeding, vascular events and death after gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet users. Aliment Pharmcol Ther. 2019 Oct;50:919-29.

Dr. Berry is assistant professor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mounting evidence suggests it’s a mistake to reject the diagnosis of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, or DRESS, simply because the interval between initiating a drug and symptom onset is less than 15 days, Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.

In addition to sharing recent data demonstrating that DRESS symptoms often occur within just a week or 2 of drug exposure, she highlighted several recent advances in the ability to predict DRESS severity. These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.

Short-delay DRESS onset

In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.

Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D₃.

Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
 

Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators

Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.

All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.

“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.

Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
 

HLA testing

Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.

The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
 

A DRESS prognostic scoring system

Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.

“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence suggests it’s a mistake to reject the diagnosis of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, or DRESS, simply because the interval between initiating a drug and symptom onset is less than 15 days, Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.

In addition to sharing recent data demonstrating that DRESS symptoms often occur within just a week or 2 of drug exposure, she highlighted several recent advances in the ability to predict DRESS severity. These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.

Short-delay DRESS onset

In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.

Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D₃.

Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
 

Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators

Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.

All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.

“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.

Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
 

HLA testing

Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.

The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
 

A DRESS prognostic scoring system

Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.

“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence suggests it’s a mistake to reject the diagnosis of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, or DRESS, simply because the interval between initiating a drug and symptom onset is less than 15 days, Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.

In addition to sharing recent data demonstrating that DRESS symptoms often occur within just a week or 2 of drug exposure, she highlighted several recent advances in the ability to predict DRESS severity. These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.

Short-delay DRESS onset

In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.

Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D₃.

Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
 

Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators

Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.

All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.

“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.

Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
 

HLA testing

Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.

The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
 

A DRESS prognostic scoring system

Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.

“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The Biden administration is exploring whether factories can be retrofitted to produce more of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to speed up vaccination of the vast majority of Americans.

The announcement comes as the nation is on track to see 479,000-514,000 deaths by the end of February, said Rochelle Walensky, MD, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Walensky, speaking to reporters Wednesday in the first briefing from the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said that 1.6 million COVID-19 shots had been administered each day over the past week and that 3.4 million Americans have been fully vaccinated with two doses.

More than 500 million doses will be needed to vaccinate every American older than 16 years, Andy Slavitt, the senior advisor to the COVID-19 response team, told reporters. Pfizer and Moderna are due to deliver an additional 200 million doses near the end of March, and President Biden is seeking to purchase another 200 million doses from the companies, said Mr. Slavitt.

But it may not be enough. Whether companies can retrofit factories to produce vaccines is “something that’s under active exploration,” Mr. Slavitt said.

“This is a national emergency,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. “Everything is on the table across the whole supply chain,” he said. He noted that the administration was also buying low-dead-space syringes to help extract an additional sixth dose from every Pfizer vial.

Mr. Slavitt said the team had identified 12 areas in which Mr. Biden was authorized to use the Defense Production Act to spur the manufacture of items such as masks and COVID-19 diagnostics.
 

More sequencing needed

As new variants emerge, vaccine makers and the CDC are racing to stay a step ahead. “RNA viruses mutate all the time – that’s what they do, that’s their business,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Mr. Biden’s chief medical adviser, in the briefing.

Three concerning variants have emerged: the B117, which is circulating widely in the United Kingdom; the B1.351 in South Africa; and the P.1 in Brazil. As of Jan. 26, no cases involving the B1.351 variant have been detected in the United States; one person with the P.1 variant was identified in Minnesota. The CDC has identified 308 cases of the U.K. variant in 26 states, said Dr. Walensky.

The United States is dismally behind in surveillance and sequencing of variants, said Zients. “We are 43rd in the world at genomic sequencing,” which he said was “totally unacceptable.”

Dr. Walensky said the CDC is working on improving data collection and sequencing, but she said more money is needed to “do the amount of sequencing and surveillance that we need in order to be able to detect these when they first start to emerge.”

Both she and Mr. Zients called on Congress to pass Mr. Biden’s proposed American Rescue package, which includes more money for sequencing.

Dr. Fauci said the National Institutes of Health was collaborating with the CDC to determine whether other newly emerging variants pose any threat – such as increased transmissibility or lethality or some other functional characteristic. Scientists will also monitor “in real-time” whether current vaccines continue to make neutralizing antibodies against these mutants.

“With the U.K. variant, what we’re seeing is a very slight, if at all, impact on vaccine-induced antibodies and very little impact on anything else,” he said. With the South African variant, there is “a multifold diminution in the in vitro neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies,” but “it still is well within the cushion of protection” for the current vaccines.

But, he added, “we have to be concerned looking forward of what the further evolution of this might be.” The anti-COVID monoclonal antibodies – bamlanivimab and the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab – are “more seriously inhibited by this South African strain,” which is spurring development of new monoclonals.

Dr. Fauci also noted that the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine that is in development – for which phase 3 data may be released within days – was tested in South Africa and Brazil in addition to the United States. The comparative data could help researchers and clinicians make better-informed decisions about what vaccine to use if the South African variant “seeds itself in the U.S.”

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

The Biden administration is exploring whether factories can be retrofitted to produce more of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to speed up vaccination of the vast majority of Americans.

The announcement comes as the nation is on track to see 479,000-514,000 deaths by the end of February, said Rochelle Walensky, MD, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Walensky, speaking to reporters Wednesday in the first briefing from the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said that 1.6 million COVID-19 shots had been administered each day over the past week and that 3.4 million Americans have been fully vaccinated with two doses.

More than 500 million doses will be needed to vaccinate every American older than 16 years, Andy Slavitt, the senior advisor to the COVID-19 response team, told reporters. Pfizer and Moderna are due to deliver an additional 200 million doses near the end of March, and President Biden is seeking to purchase another 200 million doses from the companies, said Mr. Slavitt.

But it may not be enough. Whether companies can retrofit factories to produce vaccines is “something that’s under active exploration,” Mr. Slavitt said.

“This is a national emergency,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. “Everything is on the table across the whole supply chain,” he said. He noted that the administration was also buying low-dead-space syringes to help extract an additional sixth dose from every Pfizer vial.

Mr. Slavitt said the team had identified 12 areas in which Mr. Biden was authorized to use the Defense Production Act to spur the manufacture of items such as masks and COVID-19 diagnostics.
 

More sequencing needed

As new variants emerge, vaccine makers and the CDC are racing to stay a step ahead. “RNA viruses mutate all the time – that’s what they do, that’s their business,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Mr. Biden’s chief medical adviser, in the briefing.

Three concerning variants have emerged: the B117, which is circulating widely in the United Kingdom; the B1.351 in South Africa; and the P.1 in Brazil. As of Jan. 26, no cases involving the B1.351 variant have been detected in the United States; one person with the P.1 variant was identified in Minnesota. The CDC has identified 308 cases of the U.K. variant in 26 states, said Dr. Walensky.

The United States is dismally behind in surveillance and sequencing of variants, said Zients. “We are 43rd in the world at genomic sequencing,” which he said was “totally unacceptable.”

Dr. Walensky said the CDC is working on improving data collection and sequencing, but she said more money is needed to “do the amount of sequencing and surveillance that we need in order to be able to detect these when they first start to emerge.”

Both she and Mr. Zients called on Congress to pass Mr. Biden’s proposed American Rescue package, which includes more money for sequencing.

Dr. Fauci said the National Institutes of Health was collaborating with the CDC to determine whether other newly emerging variants pose any threat – such as increased transmissibility or lethality or some other functional characteristic. Scientists will also monitor “in real-time” whether current vaccines continue to make neutralizing antibodies against these mutants.

“With the U.K. variant, what we’re seeing is a very slight, if at all, impact on vaccine-induced antibodies and very little impact on anything else,” he said. With the South African variant, there is “a multifold diminution in the in vitro neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies,” but “it still is well within the cushion of protection” for the current vaccines.

But, he added, “we have to be concerned looking forward of what the further evolution of this might be.” The anti-COVID monoclonal antibodies – bamlanivimab and the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab – are “more seriously inhibited by this South African strain,” which is spurring development of new monoclonals.

Dr. Fauci also noted that the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine that is in development – for which phase 3 data may be released within days – was tested in South Africa and Brazil in addition to the United States. The comparative data could help researchers and clinicians make better-informed decisions about what vaccine to use if the South African variant “seeds itself in the U.S.”

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

The Biden administration is exploring whether factories can be retrofitted to produce more of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to speed up vaccination of the vast majority of Americans.

The announcement comes as the nation is on track to see 479,000-514,000 deaths by the end of February, said Rochelle Walensky, MD, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Walensky, speaking to reporters Wednesday in the first briefing from the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said that 1.6 million COVID-19 shots had been administered each day over the past week and that 3.4 million Americans have been fully vaccinated with two doses.

More than 500 million doses will be needed to vaccinate every American older than 16 years, Andy Slavitt, the senior advisor to the COVID-19 response team, told reporters. Pfizer and Moderna are due to deliver an additional 200 million doses near the end of March, and President Biden is seeking to purchase another 200 million doses from the companies, said Mr. Slavitt.

But it may not be enough. Whether companies can retrofit factories to produce vaccines is “something that’s under active exploration,” Mr. Slavitt said.

“This is a national emergency,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. “Everything is on the table across the whole supply chain,” he said. He noted that the administration was also buying low-dead-space syringes to help extract an additional sixth dose from every Pfizer vial.

Mr. Slavitt said the team had identified 12 areas in which Mr. Biden was authorized to use the Defense Production Act to spur the manufacture of items such as masks and COVID-19 diagnostics.
 

More sequencing needed

As new variants emerge, vaccine makers and the CDC are racing to stay a step ahead. “RNA viruses mutate all the time – that’s what they do, that’s their business,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Mr. Biden’s chief medical adviser, in the briefing.

Three concerning variants have emerged: the B117, which is circulating widely in the United Kingdom; the B1.351 in South Africa; and the P.1 in Brazil. As of Jan. 26, no cases involving the B1.351 variant have been detected in the United States; one person with the P.1 variant was identified in Minnesota. The CDC has identified 308 cases of the U.K. variant in 26 states, said Dr. Walensky.

The United States is dismally behind in surveillance and sequencing of variants, said Zients. “We are 43rd in the world at genomic sequencing,” which he said was “totally unacceptable.”

Dr. Walensky said the CDC is working on improving data collection and sequencing, but she said more money is needed to “do the amount of sequencing and surveillance that we need in order to be able to detect these when they first start to emerge.”

Both she and Mr. Zients called on Congress to pass Mr. Biden’s proposed American Rescue package, which includes more money for sequencing.

Dr. Fauci said the National Institutes of Health was collaborating with the CDC to determine whether other newly emerging variants pose any threat – such as increased transmissibility or lethality or some other functional characteristic. Scientists will also monitor “in real-time” whether current vaccines continue to make neutralizing antibodies against these mutants.

“With the U.K. variant, what we’re seeing is a very slight, if at all, impact on vaccine-induced antibodies and very little impact on anything else,” he said. With the South African variant, there is “a multifold diminution in the in vitro neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies,” but “it still is well within the cushion of protection” for the current vaccines.

But, he added, “we have to be concerned looking forward of what the further evolution of this might be.” The anti-COVID monoclonal antibodies – bamlanivimab and the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab – are “more seriously inhibited by this South African strain,” which is spurring development of new monoclonals.

Dr. Fauci also noted that the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine that is in development – for which phase 3 data may be released within days – was tested in South Africa and Brazil in addition to the United States. The comparative data could help researchers and clinicians make better-informed decisions about what vaccine to use if the South African variant “seeds itself in the U.S.”

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

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.