Ob.Gyn. News

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.