Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.

Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.

Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

CASE Concerning finding on repeat CD

A 30-year-old woman with a history of 1 prior cesarean delivery (CD) presents to labor and delivery at 38 weeks of gestation with symptoms of mild cramping. Her prenatal care was uncomplicated. The covering team made a decision to proceed with a repeat CD. A Pfannenstiel incision is made to enter the abdomen, and inspection of the lower uterine segment is concerning for a placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) (FIGURE).

What would be your next steps?

Placenta accreta spectrum describes the range of disorders of placental implantation, including placenta accreta, increta, and percreta. PAS is a significant cause of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, primarily due to massive hemorrhage at the time of delivery. The incidence of PAS continues to rise along with the CD rate. The authors of a recent meta-analysis reported a pooled prevalence rate of 1 in 588 women.¹ Notably, in women with PAS, the rate of hysterectomy is 52.2%, and the transfusion-dependent hemorrhage rate is 46.9%.¹

Ideally, PAS should be diagnosed or at least suspected antenatally during prenatal ultrasonography, leading to delivery planning by a multidisciplinary team.² The presence of a multidisciplinary team—in addition to the primary obstetric and surgical teams—composed of experienced anesthesiologists, a blood bank able to respond to massive transfusion needs, critical care specialists, and interventional radiologists is associated with improved outcomes.^3-5

Occasionally, a patient is found to have an advanced PAS (increta or percreta) at the time of delivery. In these situations, it is paramount that the appropriate resources be assembled as expeditiously as possible to optimize maternal outcomes. Surgical management can be challenging even for experienced pelvic surgeons, and appropriate resuscitation cannot be provided by a single anesthesiologist working alone. A cavalier attitude of proceeding with the delivery “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences, including maternal death.

In this article, we review the important steps to take when faced with the unexpected situation of a PAS at the time of CD.

Continue to: Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team...

Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team

Once the diagnosis of an advanced PAS is suspected, the first step is to stop and request the presence of your institution’s multidisciplinary surgical team. This team typically includes a maternal-fetal specialist or, if not available, an experienced obstetrician, and an expert pelvic surgeon, which varies by institution (gynecologic oncologist, trauma surgeon, urologist, urogynecologist, vascular surgeon). An interventional radiology team is an additional useful resource that can assist with the control of pelvic hemorrhage using embolization techniques.

In our opinion, it is not appropriate to have a surgical backup team available only as needed at a certain distance from the hospital or even in the building. Because of the acuity and magnitude of bleeding that can occur in a short time, the most appropriate approach is to have your surgical team scrubbed and ready to assist or take over the procedure immediately if indicated.

Additional support staff also may be required. A single circulating nurse may not be sufficient, and available nursing staff may need to be called. The surgical technician scrubbed on the case may be familiar only with uncomplicated CDs and can be overwhelmed during a PAS case. Having a more experienced surgical technologist can optimize the availability of the appropriate instruments for the surgical team.

If a multidisciplinary surgical team with PAS management expertise is not available at your institution and the patient is stable, it is appropriate to consider transferring her to the nearest center that can meet the high-risk needs of this situation.⁶

Prepare for resuscitation

While you are calling your multidisciplinary team members, implement plans for resuscitation by notifying the anesthesiologist about the PAS findings. This will allow the gathering of needed resources that may include calling on additional anesthesiologists with experience in high-risk obstetrics, trauma, or critical care.

Placing large-bore intravenous lines or a central line to allow rapid transfusion is essential. Strongly consider inserting an arterial line for hemodynamic monitoring and intraoperative blood draws to monitor blood loss, blood gases, electrolytes, and coagulation parameters, which can guide resuscitative efforts and replacement therapies.

Simultaneously, inform the blood bank to prepare blood and blood products for possible activation of a massive transfusion protocol. It is imperative to have the products available in the operating room (OR) prior to proceeding with the surgery. Our current practice is to have 10 units of packed red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma available in the OR for all our prenatally diagnosed electively planned PAS cases.

Optimize exposure of the surgical field

Appropriate exposure of the surgical field is essential and should include exposure of the uterine fundus and the pelvic sidewalls. The uterine incision should avoid the placenta; typically it is placed at the level of the uterine fundus. Exposure of the pelvic sidewalls is needed to open the retroperitoneum and identify the ureter and the iliac vessels.

Vertical extension of the fascial incision probably will be needed to achieve appropriate exposure. Although at times this can be done without a concomitant vertical skin incision, often an inverted T incision is required. Be mindful that PAS is a life-threatening condition and that aesthetics are not a priority. After extending the fascial incision, adequate exposure can be achieved with any of the commonly used retractors or wound protectors (depending on institutional availability and surgeon preference) or by the surgical assistants using body wall retractors.

We routinely place the patient in lithotomy position. This allows us to monitor for vaginal bleeding (often a site of unrecognized massive hemorrhage) during the surgery, facilitate retrograde bladder filling, and provide a vaginal access to the pelvis. In addition, the lithotomy position allows for cystoscopy and placement of ureteral stents, which can be performed before starting the surgery to help prevent urinary tract injuries or at the end of the procedure in case one is suspected.⁷

Continue to: Performing the hysterectomy...

A complete review of all surgical techniques for managing PAS is beyond the scope of this article. However, we briefly cover important procedural steps and offer suggestions on how to minimize the risk of bleeding.

In our experience. The areas with the highest risk of massive bleeding that can be difficult to control include the pelvic sidewall when there is lateral extension of the PAS, the vesicouterine space, and placenta previa vaginally. Be mindful of these areas at risk and have a plan in place in case of bleeding.

Uterine incision

Avoid the placenta when making the uterine incision, which is typically done in the fundal part of the uterus. Cut and tie the cord and return it to the uterine cavity. Close the incision in a single layer. Use of a surgical stapler can be used for the hysterotomy and can decrease the amount of blood loss.⁸

Superior attachments of the uterus

The superior attachments of the uterus include the round ligament, the utero-ovarian ligament, and the fallopian tubes. With meticulous dissection, develop an avascular space underneath these structures and, in turn, individually divide and suture ligate; this is typically achieved with minimal blood loss.

In addition, isolate the engorged veins of the broad ligament and divide them in a similar fashion.

In our experience. Use of a vessel-sealing device can facilitate division of all the former structures. Simply excise the fallopian tubes with the vessel-sealing device either at this time or after the uterus is removed.

Pelvic sidewall

Once the superior attachments of the uterus have been divided, the next step involves exposing the pelvic sidewall structures, that is, the ureter and the pelvic vessels. Expose the ureter from the pelvic brim to the level of the uterine artery. The hypogastric artery is exposed as well in this process and the pararectal space developed.

When the PAS has extended laterally, perform stepwise division of the lateral attachments of the placenta to the pelvic sidewall using a combination of electrocautery, hemoclips, and the vessel-sealing device. In laterally extended PAS cases, it often is necessary to divide the uterine artery either at its origin or at the level of the ureter to allow for the completion of the separation of the placenta from the pelvic sidewall.

In our experience. During this lateral dissection, significant bleeding may be encountered from the neovascular network that has developed in the pelvic sidewall. The bleeding may be diffuse and difficult to control with the methods described above. In this situation, we have found that placing hemostatic agents in this area and packing the sidewall with laparotomy pads can achieve hemostasis in most cases, thus allowing the surgery to proceed.

Continue to: Bladder dissection...

Bladder dissection

The next critical part of the surgery involves developing the vesicovaginal space to mobilize the bladder. Prior to initiating the bladder dissection, we routinely retrograde fill the bladder with 180 to 240 mL of saline mixed with methylene blue. This delineates the superior edge of the bladder and indicates the appropriate level to start the dissection. Then slowly develop the vesicouterine space using a combination of electrocautery and a vessel-sealing device until the bladder is mobilized to the level of the anterior vaginal wall. Many vascular connections are encountered at that level, and meticulous dissection and patience is required to systematically divide them all.

In our experience. This part of the surgery presents several challenges. The bladder wall may be invaded by the placenta, which will lead to an increased risk of bleeding and cystotomy during the dissection. In these cases, it might be preferable to create an intentional cystotomy to guide the dissection; at times, a limited excision of the involved bladder wall may be required. In other cases, even in the absence of bladder wall invasion, the bladder may be densely adherent to the uterine wall (usually due to a history of prior CDs), and bladder mobilization may be complicated by bleeding from the neovascular network that has developed between the placenta and bladder.

Uterine arteries and cervix

Once the placenta is separated from its lateral attachments and the bladder is mobilized, the next steps are similar to those in a standard abdominal hysterectomy. If the uterine arteries were not yet divided during the pelvic sidewall dissection, they are clamped, divided, and suture ligated at the level of the uterine isthmus. The decision whether to perform a supracervical or total hysterectomy depends on the level of cervical involvement by the placenta, surgeon preference, anatomic distortion, and bleeding from the cervix and anterior vaginal wall.

Responding to massive bleeding

Not uncommonly, and despite the best efforts to avoid it, massive bleeding may develop from the areas at risk as noted above. If the bleeding is significant and originates from multiple areas (including vaginal bleeding from placenta previa), we recommend proceeding with an expeditious hysterectomy to remove the specimen, and then reassess the pelvic field for hemostatic control and any organ damage that may have occurred.

The challenge of PAS

Surgical management of PAS is one the most challenging procedures in pelvic surgery. Successful outcomes require a multidisciplinary team approach and an experienced team dedicated to the management of this condition.⁹ By contrast, proceeding “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. ●

CASE Concerning finding on repeat CD

A 30-year-old woman with a history of 1 prior cesarean delivery (CD) presents to labor and delivery at 38 weeks of gestation with symptoms of mild cramping. Her prenatal care was uncomplicated. The covering team made a decision to proceed with a repeat CD. A Pfannenstiel incision is made to enter the abdomen, and inspection of the lower uterine segment is concerning for a placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) (FIGURE).

What would be your next steps?

Placenta accreta spectrum describes the range of disorders of placental implantation, including placenta accreta, increta, and percreta. PAS is a significant cause of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, primarily due to massive hemorrhage at the time of delivery. The incidence of PAS continues to rise along with the CD rate. The authors of a recent meta-analysis reported a pooled prevalence rate of 1 in 588 women.¹ Notably, in women with PAS, the rate of hysterectomy is 52.2%, and the transfusion-dependent hemorrhage rate is 46.9%.¹

Ideally, PAS should be diagnosed or at least suspected antenatally during prenatal ultrasonography, leading to delivery planning by a multidisciplinary team.² The presence of a multidisciplinary team—in addition to the primary obstetric and surgical teams—composed of experienced anesthesiologists, a blood bank able to respond to massive transfusion needs, critical care specialists, and interventional radiologists is associated with improved outcomes.^3-5

Occasionally, a patient is found to have an advanced PAS (increta or percreta) at the time of delivery. In these situations, it is paramount that the appropriate resources be assembled as expeditiously as possible to optimize maternal outcomes. Surgical management can be challenging even for experienced pelvic surgeons, and appropriate resuscitation cannot be provided by a single anesthesiologist working alone. A cavalier attitude of proceeding with the delivery “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences, including maternal death.

In this article, we review the important steps to take when faced with the unexpected situation of a PAS at the time of CD.

Continue to: Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team...

Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team

Once the diagnosis of an advanced PAS is suspected, the first step is to stop and request the presence of your institution’s multidisciplinary surgical team. This team typically includes a maternal-fetal specialist or, if not available, an experienced obstetrician, and an expert pelvic surgeon, which varies by institution (gynecologic oncologist, trauma surgeon, urologist, urogynecologist, vascular surgeon). An interventional radiology team is an additional useful resource that can assist with the control of pelvic hemorrhage using embolization techniques.

In our opinion, it is not appropriate to have a surgical backup team available only as needed at a certain distance from the hospital or even in the building. Because of the acuity and magnitude of bleeding that can occur in a short time, the most appropriate approach is to have your surgical team scrubbed and ready to assist or take over the procedure immediately if indicated.

Additional support staff also may be required. A single circulating nurse may not be sufficient, and available nursing staff may need to be called. The surgical technician scrubbed on the case may be familiar only with uncomplicated CDs and can be overwhelmed during a PAS case. Having a more experienced surgical technologist can optimize the availability of the appropriate instruments for the surgical team.

If a multidisciplinary surgical team with PAS management expertise is not available at your institution and the patient is stable, it is appropriate to consider transferring her to the nearest center that can meet the high-risk needs of this situation.⁶

Prepare for resuscitation

While you are calling your multidisciplinary team members, implement plans for resuscitation by notifying the anesthesiologist about the PAS findings. This will allow the gathering of needed resources that may include calling on additional anesthesiologists with experience in high-risk obstetrics, trauma, or critical care.

Placing large-bore intravenous lines or a central line to allow rapid transfusion is essential. Strongly consider inserting an arterial line for hemodynamic monitoring and intraoperative blood draws to monitor blood loss, blood gases, electrolytes, and coagulation parameters, which can guide resuscitative efforts and replacement therapies.

Simultaneously, inform the blood bank to prepare blood and blood products for possible activation of a massive transfusion protocol. It is imperative to have the products available in the operating room (OR) prior to proceeding with the surgery. Our current practice is to have 10 units of packed red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma available in the OR for all our prenatally diagnosed electively planned PAS cases.

Optimize exposure of the surgical field

Appropriate exposure of the surgical field is essential and should include exposure of the uterine fundus and the pelvic sidewalls. The uterine incision should avoid the placenta; typically it is placed at the level of the uterine fundus. Exposure of the pelvic sidewalls is needed to open the retroperitoneum and identify the ureter and the iliac vessels.

Vertical extension of the fascial incision probably will be needed to achieve appropriate exposure. Although at times this can be done without a concomitant vertical skin incision, often an inverted T incision is required. Be mindful that PAS is a life-threatening condition and that aesthetics are not a priority. After extending the fascial incision, adequate exposure can be achieved with any of the commonly used retractors or wound protectors (depending on institutional availability and surgeon preference) or by the surgical assistants using body wall retractors.

We routinely place the patient in lithotomy position. This allows us to monitor for vaginal bleeding (often a site of unrecognized massive hemorrhage) during the surgery, facilitate retrograde bladder filling, and provide a vaginal access to the pelvis. In addition, the lithotomy position allows for cystoscopy and placement of ureteral stents, which can be performed before starting the surgery to help prevent urinary tract injuries or at the end of the procedure in case one is suspected.⁷

Continue to: Performing the hysterectomy...

A complete review of all surgical techniques for managing PAS is beyond the scope of this article. However, we briefly cover important procedural steps and offer suggestions on how to minimize the risk of bleeding.

In our experience. The areas with the highest risk of massive bleeding that can be difficult to control include the pelvic sidewall when there is lateral extension of the PAS, the vesicouterine space, and placenta previa vaginally. Be mindful of these areas at risk and have a plan in place in case of bleeding.

Uterine incision

Avoid the placenta when making the uterine incision, which is typically done in the fundal part of the uterus. Cut and tie the cord and return it to the uterine cavity. Close the incision in a single layer. Use of a surgical stapler can be used for the hysterotomy and can decrease the amount of blood loss.⁸

Superior attachments of the uterus

The superior attachments of the uterus include the round ligament, the utero-ovarian ligament, and the fallopian tubes. With meticulous dissection, develop an avascular space underneath these structures and, in turn, individually divide and suture ligate; this is typically achieved with minimal blood loss.

In addition, isolate the engorged veins of the broad ligament and divide them in a similar fashion.

In our experience. Use of a vessel-sealing device can facilitate division of all the former structures. Simply excise the fallopian tubes with the vessel-sealing device either at this time or after the uterus is removed.

Pelvic sidewall

Once the superior attachments of the uterus have been divided, the next step involves exposing the pelvic sidewall structures, that is, the ureter and the pelvic vessels. Expose the ureter from the pelvic brim to the level of the uterine artery. The hypogastric artery is exposed as well in this process and the pararectal space developed.

When the PAS has extended laterally, perform stepwise division of the lateral attachments of the placenta to the pelvic sidewall using a combination of electrocautery, hemoclips, and the vessel-sealing device. In laterally extended PAS cases, it often is necessary to divide the uterine artery either at its origin or at the level of the ureter to allow for the completion of the separation of the placenta from the pelvic sidewall.

In our experience. During this lateral dissection, significant bleeding may be encountered from the neovascular network that has developed in the pelvic sidewall. The bleeding may be diffuse and difficult to control with the methods described above. In this situation, we have found that placing hemostatic agents in this area and packing the sidewall with laparotomy pads can achieve hemostasis in most cases, thus allowing the surgery to proceed.

Continue to: Bladder dissection...

Bladder dissection

The next critical part of the surgery involves developing the vesicovaginal space to mobilize the bladder. Prior to initiating the bladder dissection, we routinely retrograde fill the bladder with 180 to 240 mL of saline mixed with methylene blue. This delineates the superior edge of the bladder and indicates the appropriate level to start the dissection. Then slowly develop the vesicouterine space using a combination of electrocautery and a vessel-sealing device until the bladder is mobilized to the level of the anterior vaginal wall. Many vascular connections are encountered at that level, and meticulous dissection and patience is required to systematically divide them all.

In our experience. This part of the surgery presents several challenges. The bladder wall may be invaded by the placenta, which will lead to an increased risk of bleeding and cystotomy during the dissection. In these cases, it might be preferable to create an intentional cystotomy to guide the dissection; at times, a limited excision of the involved bladder wall may be required. In other cases, even in the absence of bladder wall invasion, the bladder may be densely adherent to the uterine wall (usually due to a history of prior CDs), and bladder mobilization may be complicated by bleeding from the neovascular network that has developed between the placenta and bladder.

Uterine arteries and cervix

Once the placenta is separated from its lateral attachments and the bladder is mobilized, the next steps are similar to those in a standard abdominal hysterectomy. If the uterine arteries were not yet divided during the pelvic sidewall dissection, they are clamped, divided, and suture ligated at the level of the uterine isthmus. The decision whether to perform a supracervical or total hysterectomy depends on the level of cervical involvement by the placenta, surgeon preference, anatomic distortion, and bleeding from the cervix and anterior vaginal wall.

Responding to massive bleeding

Not uncommonly, and despite the best efforts to avoid it, massive bleeding may develop from the areas at risk as noted above. If the bleeding is significant and originates from multiple areas (including vaginal bleeding from placenta previa), we recommend proceeding with an expeditious hysterectomy to remove the specimen, and then reassess the pelvic field for hemostatic control and any organ damage that may have occurred.

The challenge of PAS

Surgical management of PAS is one the most challenging procedures in pelvic surgery. Successful outcomes require a multidisciplinary team approach and an experienced team dedicated to the management of this condition.⁹ By contrast, proceeding “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. ●

CASE Concerning finding on repeat CD

A 30-year-old woman with a history of 1 prior cesarean delivery (CD) presents to labor and delivery at 38 weeks of gestation with symptoms of mild cramping. Her prenatal care was uncomplicated. The covering team made a decision to proceed with a repeat CD. A Pfannenstiel incision is made to enter the abdomen, and inspection of the lower uterine segment is concerning for a placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) (FIGURE).

What would be your next steps?

Placenta accreta spectrum describes the range of disorders of placental implantation, including placenta accreta, increta, and percreta. PAS is a significant cause of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, primarily due to massive hemorrhage at the time of delivery. The incidence of PAS continues to rise along with the CD rate. The authors of a recent meta-analysis reported a pooled prevalence rate of 1 in 588 women.¹ Notably, in women with PAS, the rate of hysterectomy is 52.2%, and the transfusion-dependent hemorrhage rate is 46.9%.¹

Ideally, PAS should be diagnosed or at least suspected antenatally during prenatal ultrasonography, leading to delivery planning by a multidisciplinary team.² The presence of a multidisciplinary team—in addition to the primary obstetric and surgical teams—composed of experienced anesthesiologists, a blood bank able to respond to massive transfusion needs, critical care specialists, and interventional radiologists is associated with improved outcomes.^3-5

Occasionally, a patient is found to have an advanced PAS (increta or percreta) at the time of delivery. In these situations, it is paramount that the appropriate resources be assembled as expeditiously as possible to optimize maternal outcomes. Surgical management can be challenging even for experienced pelvic surgeons, and appropriate resuscitation cannot be provided by a single anesthesiologist working alone. A cavalier attitude of proceeding with the delivery “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences, including maternal death.

In this article, we review the important steps to take when faced with the unexpected situation of a PAS at the time of CD.

Continue to: Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team...

Stop and collect your multidisciplinary team

Once the diagnosis of an advanced PAS is suspected, the first step is to stop and request the presence of your institution’s multidisciplinary surgical team. This team typically includes a maternal-fetal specialist or, if not available, an experienced obstetrician, and an expert pelvic surgeon, which varies by institution (gynecologic oncologist, trauma surgeon, urologist, urogynecologist, vascular surgeon). An interventional radiology team is an additional useful resource that can assist with the control of pelvic hemorrhage using embolization techniques.

In our opinion, it is not appropriate to have a surgical backup team available only as needed at a certain distance from the hospital or even in the building. Because of the acuity and magnitude of bleeding that can occur in a short time, the most appropriate approach is to have your surgical team scrubbed and ready to assist or take over the procedure immediately if indicated.

Additional support staff also may be required. A single circulating nurse may not be sufficient, and available nursing staff may need to be called. The surgical technician scrubbed on the case may be familiar only with uncomplicated CDs and can be overwhelmed during a PAS case. Having a more experienced surgical technologist can optimize the availability of the appropriate instruments for the surgical team.

If a multidisciplinary surgical team with PAS management expertise is not available at your institution and the patient is stable, it is appropriate to consider transferring her to the nearest center that can meet the high-risk needs of this situation.⁶

Prepare for resuscitation

While you are calling your multidisciplinary team members, implement plans for resuscitation by notifying the anesthesiologist about the PAS findings. This will allow the gathering of needed resources that may include calling on additional anesthesiologists with experience in high-risk obstetrics, trauma, or critical care.

Placing large-bore intravenous lines or a central line to allow rapid transfusion is essential. Strongly consider inserting an arterial line for hemodynamic monitoring and intraoperative blood draws to monitor blood loss, blood gases, electrolytes, and coagulation parameters, which can guide resuscitative efforts and replacement therapies.

Simultaneously, inform the blood bank to prepare blood and blood products for possible activation of a massive transfusion protocol. It is imperative to have the products available in the operating room (OR) prior to proceeding with the surgery. Our current practice is to have 10 units of packed red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma available in the OR for all our prenatally diagnosed electively planned PAS cases.

Optimize exposure of the surgical field

Appropriate exposure of the surgical field is essential and should include exposure of the uterine fundus and the pelvic sidewalls. The uterine incision should avoid the placenta; typically it is placed at the level of the uterine fundus. Exposure of the pelvic sidewalls is needed to open the retroperitoneum and identify the ureter and the iliac vessels.

Vertical extension of the fascial incision probably will be needed to achieve appropriate exposure. Although at times this can be done without a concomitant vertical skin incision, often an inverted T incision is required. Be mindful that PAS is a life-threatening condition and that aesthetics are not a priority. After extending the fascial incision, adequate exposure can be achieved with any of the commonly used retractors or wound protectors (depending on institutional availability and surgeon preference) or by the surgical assistants using body wall retractors.

We routinely place the patient in lithotomy position. This allows us to monitor for vaginal bleeding (often a site of unrecognized massive hemorrhage) during the surgery, facilitate retrograde bladder filling, and provide a vaginal access to the pelvis. In addition, the lithotomy position allows for cystoscopy and placement of ureteral stents, which can be performed before starting the surgery to help prevent urinary tract injuries or at the end of the procedure in case one is suspected.⁷

Continue to: Performing the hysterectomy...

A complete review of all surgical techniques for managing PAS is beyond the scope of this article. However, we briefly cover important procedural steps and offer suggestions on how to minimize the risk of bleeding.

In our experience. The areas with the highest risk of massive bleeding that can be difficult to control include the pelvic sidewall when there is lateral extension of the PAS, the vesicouterine space, and placenta previa vaginally. Be mindful of these areas at risk and have a plan in place in case of bleeding.

Uterine incision

Avoid the placenta when making the uterine incision, which is typically done in the fundal part of the uterus. Cut and tie the cord and return it to the uterine cavity. Close the incision in a single layer. Use of a surgical stapler can be used for the hysterotomy and can decrease the amount of blood loss.⁸

Superior attachments of the uterus

The superior attachments of the uterus include the round ligament, the utero-ovarian ligament, and the fallopian tubes. With meticulous dissection, develop an avascular space underneath these structures and, in turn, individually divide and suture ligate; this is typically achieved with minimal blood loss.

In addition, isolate the engorged veins of the broad ligament and divide them in a similar fashion.

In our experience. Use of a vessel-sealing device can facilitate division of all the former structures. Simply excise the fallopian tubes with the vessel-sealing device either at this time or after the uterus is removed.

Pelvic sidewall

Once the superior attachments of the uterus have been divided, the next step involves exposing the pelvic sidewall structures, that is, the ureter and the pelvic vessels. Expose the ureter from the pelvic brim to the level of the uterine artery. The hypogastric artery is exposed as well in this process and the pararectal space developed.

When the PAS has extended laterally, perform stepwise division of the lateral attachments of the placenta to the pelvic sidewall using a combination of electrocautery, hemoclips, and the vessel-sealing device. In laterally extended PAS cases, it often is necessary to divide the uterine artery either at its origin or at the level of the ureter to allow for the completion of the separation of the placenta from the pelvic sidewall.

In our experience. During this lateral dissection, significant bleeding may be encountered from the neovascular network that has developed in the pelvic sidewall. The bleeding may be diffuse and difficult to control with the methods described above. In this situation, we have found that placing hemostatic agents in this area and packing the sidewall with laparotomy pads can achieve hemostasis in most cases, thus allowing the surgery to proceed.

Continue to: Bladder dissection...

Bladder dissection

The next critical part of the surgery involves developing the vesicovaginal space to mobilize the bladder. Prior to initiating the bladder dissection, we routinely retrograde fill the bladder with 180 to 240 mL of saline mixed with methylene blue. This delineates the superior edge of the bladder and indicates the appropriate level to start the dissection. Then slowly develop the vesicouterine space using a combination of electrocautery and a vessel-sealing device until the bladder is mobilized to the level of the anterior vaginal wall. Many vascular connections are encountered at that level, and meticulous dissection and patience is required to systematically divide them all.

In our experience. This part of the surgery presents several challenges. The bladder wall may be invaded by the placenta, which will lead to an increased risk of bleeding and cystotomy during the dissection. In these cases, it might be preferable to create an intentional cystotomy to guide the dissection; at times, a limited excision of the involved bladder wall may be required. In other cases, even in the absence of bladder wall invasion, the bladder may be densely adherent to the uterine wall (usually due to a history of prior CDs), and bladder mobilization may be complicated by bleeding from the neovascular network that has developed between the placenta and bladder.

Uterine arteries and cervix

Once the placenta is separated from its lateral attachments and the bladder is mobilized, the next steps are similar to those in a standard abdominal hysterectomy. If the uterine arteries were not yet divided during the pelvic sidewall dissection, they are clamped, divided, and suture ligated at the level of the uterine isthmus. The decision whether to perform a supracervical or total hysterectomy depends on the level of cervical involvement by the placenta, surgeon preference, anatomic distortion, and bleeding from the cervix and anterior vaginal wall.

Responding to massive bleeding

Not uncommonly, and despite the best efforts to avoid it, massive bleeding may develop from the areas at risk as noted above. If the bleeding is significant and originates from multiple areas (including vaginal bleeding from placenta previa), we recommend proceeding with an expeditious hysterectomy to remove the specimen, and then reassess the pelvic field for hemostatic control and any organ damage that may have occurred.

The challenge of PAS

Surgical management of PAS is one the most challenging procedures in pelvic surgery. Successful outcomes require a multidisciplinary team approach and an experienced team dedicated to the management of this condition.⁹ By contrast, proceeding “as usual” in the face of an unexpected PAS situation can lead to disastrous consequences in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. ●

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended the traditional 2020–2021 application season for ObGyn residency programs. In May 2020, the 2 national ObGyn education organizations, the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO) and Council on Resident Education in ObGyn (CREOG), issued guidelines to ensure a fair and equitable application process.¹ These guidelines are consistent with recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Coalition for Physician Accountability. Important recommendations include:

• limiting away rotations
• being flexible in the number of specialty-specific letters of recommendation required
• encouraging residency programs to develop alternate means of conveying information about their curriculum.

In addition, these statements provide timing on when programs should release interview offers and when to begin interviews. Finally, programs are required to commit to online interviews and virtual visits for all applicants, including local students, rather than in-person interviews.

Here, we focus on identifying apps that students can use to help them with the application process—apps for the nuts and bolts of applying and interviewing and apps to learn more about individual programs.

Students must use the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) platform from AAMC to enter their information and register with the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Students also must use the ERAS to submit their applications to their selected residency programs. The ERAS platform does not include an app to aid in the completion or submission of an application. The NRMP has developed the MATCH PRISM app, but this does not allow students to register for the match or submit their rank list. To learn about how to schedule interviews, residency programs may use one of the following sources: ERAS, Interview Broker, or Thalamus. Moreover, APGO/CREOG has partnered with Thalamus for the upcoming application cycle, which provides residency programs and applicants tools for application management, interview scheduling, and itinerary building. Thalamus offers a free app.

This year offers some unique challenges. The application process for ObGyn residencies is likely to be more competitive, and students face the added stress of having to navigate the interview season:

• without away rotations (audition interviews)
• without in-person visits of the city/hospital/program or social events before or after interview day
• with an all-virtual interview day.

Continue to: To find information on individual residency programs...

To find information on individual residency programs, the APGO website lists the FREIDA and APGO Residency Directories, which are not apps. Students are also aware of the Doximity Residency Navigator, which does include an app. The NRMP MATCH PRISM app is another resource, as it provides students with a directory of residency programs and information about each program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recognizes that residency program websites and social media will be crucial in helping applicants learn about individual programs, faculty, and residents. As such, ACOG hosted a Virtual Residency Showcase in September 2020 in which programs posted content on Instagram and Twitter using the hashtag #ACOG-ResWeek20.² Similarly, APGO and CREOG produced a report containing a social media directory, which lists individual residency programs and whether or not they have a social media handle/account.³ In a recent webinar,⁴ Drs. Sarah Santiago and Elizabeth Southworth noted that the number of residency programs that have an Instagram account more than doubled (from 60 to 128) between May and September 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended the traditional 2020–2021 application season for ObGyn residency programs. In May 2020, the 2 national ObGyn education organizations, the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO) and Council on Resident Education in ObGyn (CREOG), issued guidelines to ensure a fair and equitable application process.¹ These guidelines are consistent with recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Coalition for Physician Accountability. Important recommendations include:

• limiting away rotations
• being flexible in the number of specialty-specific letters of recommendation required
• encouraging residency programs to develop alternate means of conveying information about their curriculum.

In addition, these statements provide timing on when programs should release interview offers and when to begin interviews. Finally, programs are required to commit to online interviews and virtual visits for all applicants, including local students, rather than in-person interviews.

Here, we focus on identifying apps that students can use to help them with the application process—apps for the nuts and bolts of applying and interviewing and apps to learn more about individual programs.

Students must use the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) platform from AAMC to enter their information and register with the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Students also must use the ERAS to submit their applications to their selected residency programs. The ERAS platform does not include an app to aid in the completion or submission of an application. The NRMP has developed the MATCH PRISM app, but this does not allow students to register for the match or submit their rank list. To learn about how to schedule interviews, residency programs may use one of the following sources: ERAS, Interview Broker, or Thalamus. Moreover, APGO/CREOG has partnered with Thalamus for the upcoming application cycle, which provides residency programs and applicants tools for application management, interview scheduling, and itinerary building. Thalamus offers a free app.

This year offers some unique challenges. The application process for ObGyn residencies is likely to be more competitive, and students face the added stress of having to navigate the interview season:

• without away rotations (audition interviews)
• without in-person visits of the city/hospital/program or social events before or after interview day
• with an all-virtual interview day.

Continue to: To find information on individual residency programs...

To find information on individual residency programs, the APGO website lists the FREIDA and APGO Residency Directories, which are not apps. Students are also aware of the Doximity Residency Navigator, which does include an app. The NRMP MATCH PRISM app is another resource, as it provides students with a directory of residency programs and information about each program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recognizes that residency program websites and social media will be crucial in helping applicants learn about individual programs, faculty, and residents. As such, ACOG hosted a Virtual Residency Showcase in September 2020 in which programs posted content on Instagram and Twitter using the hashtag #ACOG-ResWeek20.² Similarly, APGO and CREOG produced a report containing a social media directory, which lists individual residency programs and whether or not they have a social media handle/account.³ In a recent webinar,⁴ Drs. Sarah Santiago and Elizabeth Southworth noted that the number of residency programs that have an Instagram account more than doubled (from 60 to 128) between May and September 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended the traditional 2020–2021 application season for ObGyn residency programs. In May 2020, the 2 national ObGyn education organizations, the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO) and Council on Resident Education in ObGyn (CREOG), issued guidelines to ensure a fair and equitable application process.¹ These guidelines are consistent with recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Coalition for Physician Accountability. Important recommendations include:

• limiting away rotations
• being flexible in the number of specialty-specific letters of recommendation required
• encouraging residency programs to develop alternate means of conveying information about their curriculum.

In addition, these statements provide timing on when programs should release interview offers and when to begin interviews. Finally, programs are required to commit to online interviews and virtual visits for all applicants, including local students, rather than in-person interviews.

Here, we focus on identifying apps that students can use to help them with the application process—apps for the nuts and bolts of applying and interviewing and apps to learn more about individual programs.

Students must use the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) platform from AAMC to enter their information and register with the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Students also must use the ERAS to submit their applications to their selected residency programs. The ERAS platform does not include an app to aid in the completion or submission of an application. The NRMP has developed the MATCH PRISM app, but this does not allow students to register for the match or submit their rank list. To learn about how to schedule interviews, residency programs may use one of the following sources: ERAS, Interview Broker, or Thalamus. Moreover, APGO/CREOG has partnered with Thalamus for the upcoming application cycle, which provides residency programs and applicants tools for application management, interview scheduling, and itinerary building. Thalamus offers a free app.

This year offers some unique challenges. The application process for ObGyn residencies is likely to be more competitive, and students face the added stress of having to navigate the interview season:

• without away rotations (audition interviews)
• without in-person visits of the city/hospital/program or social events before or after interview day
• with an all-virtual interview day.

Continue to: To find information on individual residency programs...

To find information on individual residency programs, the APGO website lists the FREIDA and APGO Residency Directories, which are not apps. Students are also aware of the Doximity Residency Navigator, which does include an app. The NRMP MATCH PRISM app is another resource, as it provides students with a directory of residency programs and information about each program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recognizes that residency program websites and social media will be crucial in helping applicants learn about individual programs, faculty, and residents. As such, ACOG hosted a Virtual Residency Showcase in September 2020 in which programs posted content on Instagram and Twitter using the hashtag #ACOG-ResWeek20.² Similarly, APGO and CREOG produced a report containing a social media directory, which lists individual residency programs and whether or not they have a social media handle/account.³ In a recent webinar,⁴ Drs. Sarah Santiago and Elizabeth Southworth noted that the number of residency programs that have an Instagram account more than doubled (from 60 to 128) between May and September 2020.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing public health challenges the United States has ever faced, and the resulting financial ruin and social isolation are creating a mental health pandemic that will continue well after COVID-19 lockdowns end. This mental health fallout may surpass the destruction from the virus with regard to disease, death, and distress. To understand which presidential candidate would best lead the mental health recovery, we identified three of the most critical issues in mental health and compared the plans of the two candidates.

Fighting the opioid epidemic

Over the last several years, the opioid epidemic has devastated American families and communities. Prior to the pandemic, drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for American adults under 50 years of age. The effects of COVID-19–enabled overdose deaths to rise even higher. Multiple elements of the pandemic – isolation, unemployment, and increased anxiety and depression – make those struggling with substance use even more vulnerable, and immediate and comprehensive action is needed to address this national tragedy.

Donald J. Trump: President Trump has been vocal and active in addressing this problem since he took office. One of the Trump administration’s successes is launching the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission and rolling out a five-point strategy built around improving services, data, research, overdose-reversing drugs, and pain management. Last year, the Trump administration funded $10 billion over 5 years to combat both the opioid epidemic and mental health issues by building upon the 21st Century CURES Act. However, in this same budget, the administration proposed cutting funding by $600 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is the top government agency for addressing and providing care for substance use.

President Trump also created an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position in the Department of Health & Human Services, and appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist with a strong track record on fighting opioid abuse in Rhode Island, to the post.
 

Joe Biden: Former Vice President Biden emphasizes that substance use is “a disease of the brain,” refuting the long-held misconception that addiction is an issue of willpower. This stigmatization is very personal given that his own son Hunter reportedly suffered through mental health and substance use issues since his teenage years. However, Biden also had a major role in pushing forward the federal “war on drugs,” including his role in crafting the “Len Bias law.”

Mr. Biden has since released a multifaceted plan for reducing substance use, aiming to make prevention and treatment services more available through a $125 billion federal investment. There are also measures to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for triggering the crisis, stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States, and restrict incentive payments from manufacturers to doctors so as to limit the dosing and usage of powerful opioids.
 

Accessing health care

One of the main dividing lines in this election has been the battle to either gut or build upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This will have deep ramifications on people’s access to health mental health services. Since COVID-19 started, more than 50% of Americans have reported worsening mental health. This makes it crucial that each candidate’s mental health plan is judged by how they would expand access to insurance, address unenforced parity laws, and protect those who have a mental health disorder as a preexisting condition.

Mr. Trump: Following a failed Senate vote to repeal this law, the Trump administration took a piecemeal approach to dismantling the ACA that included removing the individual mandate, enabling states to introduce Medicaid work requirements, and reducing cost-sharing subsidies to insurers.

If a re-elected Trump administration pursued a complete repeal of the ACA law, many individuals with previous access to mental health and substance abuse treatment via Medicaid expansion may lose access altogether. In addition, key mechanisms aimed at making sure that mental health services are covered by private health plans may be lost, which could undermine policies to address opioids and suicide. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s move during the pandemic to expand telemedicine services has also expanded access to mental health services.

Mr. Biden: Mr. Biden’s plan would build upon the ACA by working to achieve parity between the treatment of mental health and physical health. The ACA itself strengthened the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (federal parity law), which Mr. Biden championed as vice president, by mandating that all private insurance cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This act still exempts some health plans, such as larger employers; and many insurers have used loopholes in the policy to illegally deny what could be life-saving coverage.

It follows that those who can afford Mr. Biden’s proposed public option Medicare buy-in would receive more comprehensive mental health benefits. He also says he would invest in school and college mental health professionals, an important opportunity for early intervention given 75% of lifetime mental illness starts by age 24 years. While Mr. Biden has not stated a specific plan for addressing minority groups, whose mental health has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, he has acknowledged that this unmet need should be targeted.
 

Addressing suicide

More than 3,000 Americans attempt suicide every day. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for America’s youth and one of the top 10 leading causes of death across the population. Numerous strategies are necessary to address suicide, but one of the most decisive is gun control. Gun violence is inextricably tied to suicide: States where gun prevalence is higher see about four times the number of suicides because of guns, whereas nonfirearm suicide rates are the same as those seen elsewhere. In 2017, of the nearly 40,000 people who died of gun violence, 60% were attributable to suicides. Since the pandemic started, there have been increases in reported suicidal thoughts and a nearly 1,000% increase in use of the national crisis hotline. This is especially concerning given the uptick during the pandemic of gun purchases; as of September, more guns have been purchased this year than any year before.

Mr. Trump: Prior to coronavirus, the Trump administration was unwilling to enact gun control legislation. In early 2017, Mr. Trump removed an Obama-era bill that would have expanded the background check database. It would have added those deemed legally unfit to handle their own funds and those who received Social Security funds for mental health reasons. During the lockdown, the administration made an advisory ruling declaring gun shops as essential businesses that states should keep open.

Mr. Biden: The former vice president has a history of supporting gun control measures in his time as a senator and vice president. In the Senate, Mr. Biden supported both the Brady handgun bill in 1993 and a ban on assault weapons in 1994. As vice president, he was tasked by President Obama to push for a renewed assault weapons ban and a background check bill (Manchin-Toomey bill).

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden has suggested creating universal background checks and reinstating bans on assault rifle sales. He has said that he is also open to having a federal buyback program for assault rifles from gun owners.
 

Why this matters

The winner of the 2020 election will lead an electorate that is reeling from the health, economic, and social consequences COVID-19. The next administration needs to act swiftly to address the mental health pandemic and have a keen awareness of what is ahead. As Americans make their voting decision, consider who has the best plans not only to contain the virus but also the mental health crises that are ravaging our nation.

Dr. Vasan is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she is founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation. She also serves as chief medical officer of Real, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Innovation. Dr. Vasan has no conflicts of interest. Mr. Agbafe is a fellow at Stanford Brainstorm and a first-year medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no conflicts of interest. Ms. Li is a policy intern at Stanford Brainstorm and an undergraduate student in the department of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. She has no conflicts of interest.

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]