Ob.Gyn. News

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

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

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

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

A routine blood test may pack a bigger punch than previously suspected, suggests a recent analysis of over 3 million Canadian patient records.

A finding of thrombocytosis (platelet count >450 x 109/L) was associated with a greatly increased risk for some cancers up to 5 years later.

Overall, a high platelet count increased by 2.7 times the odds of receiving a solid-tumor cancer diagnosis within 2 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.8).

The cancers most likely to be associated with unexpected thrombocytosis were those notorious for late-stage diagnosis due to a lack of early symptoms.

The risk was highest (23.3 times) for ovarian cancer. The risk was 3.8 times higher for pancreatic cancer and 3.5 times higher for cervical cancer.

Lung cancer was 4.4 times more likely within 2 years among patients with thrombocytosis compared to patients with normal platelet counts.

Conversely, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers were not linked to the finding of thrombocytosis.

The study results were published online in JAMA Network Open on Aug. 12).

One of the authors of the article, Stephen A. Narod, MD, director of the Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit at the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, said the results were not unexpected but “very striking.”

“I had a hunch we were going to see this because I’ve seen this in other databases,” said Dr. Narod. “I think what struck me about it was how ubiquitous it was.”

Dr. Narod urged physicians, especially those in primary care, to take note: “If the platelets are high, I would certainly have a concern about lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer.”

Dr. Narod and coauthor Vasily Giannakeas, a PhD candidate, pointed out that in their analysis that they were unable to single out cases in which a blood test was performed because the patient complained of symptoms that are associated with cancer. In those cases, thrombocytosis may have been diagnostic, rather than a lifesaving serendipitous finding.

Similar findings were reported recently from the United Kingdom.

A study by Sarah Bailey, PhD, MPH, and colleagues that was published last year in the British Journal of General Practice also found a connection between cancer incidence and platelet count. Dr. Bailey is a senior research fellow at the University of Exeter, England.

However, unlike in the Canadian study, the team led by Dr. Bailey was able to distinguish those patients for whom there were alarm symptoms for cancer. Dr. Bailey and colleagues found that two-thirds of men older than 65 had “no recorded alarm features of cancer in the 21 days before their index platelet count.”

Although this suggests that a routine finding of thrombocytosis could uncover unsuspected cancers, Dr. Bailey is cautious about hailing platelet counts as a new cancer-screening tool.

In emailed comments, Dr. Bailey said, “The crucial part of our study is that it was conducted with patients who were ill enough to see their GP [general practitioner]. Opportunistic measurement in patients who are asymptomatic would be quite a different thing. We would have to study the platelet count and subsequent cancers in asymptomatic patients to know if that was worth doing.”

Perhaps most helpfully, the U.K. study showed that cancer risk was increased even among some patients with normal platelet counts. For example, for men aged 60 and older, lung cancer was 4.7 times more likely among those with high-normal counts (≥326 x 109/L).

Because of this somewhat alarming finding, Dr. Bailey suggested moving away from a focus on absolute values. Rising platelet counts might be more clinically useful, she said.

“Physicians should be on the lookout for any unexplained increase in an individual’s platelet count, irrespective of whether the increased value is over or under the local threshold that is applied to define thrombocytosis,” concluded Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Narod has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bailey is a research fellow of the CanTest Collaborative.

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

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

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

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antibody levels may wane after 7 months for people who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a new study published on the bioRxiv preprint server.

In the study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or formally published in a medical journal, researchers analyzed blood samples from 46 healthy young or middle-aged adults after receiving two doses, and then 6 months after the second dose.

“Our study shows vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine induces high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the original vaccine strain, but these levels drop by nearly 10-fold by 7 months,” the researchers told Reuters.

In about half of the adults, neutralizing antibodies were undetectable at 6 months after the second dose, particularly against coronavirus variants such as Delta, Beta, and Mu.

Neutralizing antibodies only make up part of the body’s immune defense against the virus, Reuters noted, but they are still “critically important” in protecting against coronavirus infections.

“These findings suggest that administering a booster dose at around 6 to 7 months following the initial immunization will likely enhance protection,” the study authors wrote.

BioNTech said a new vaccine formula will likely be needed by mid-2022 to protect against future mutations of the virus, according to the Financial Times.

“This year, [a different vaccine] is completely unneeded, but by mid-next year, it could be a different situation,” Ugur Sahin, MD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, told the news outlet.

Current variants, namely the Delta variant, are more contagious than the original coronavirus strain but not different enough to evade current vaccines, he said. But new strains may be able to evade boosters.

“This virus will stay, and the virus will further adapt,” Dr. Sahin said. “This is a continuous evolution, and that evolution has just started.”

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

Antibody levels may wane after 7 months for people who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a new study published on the bioRxiv preprint server.

In the study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or formally published in a medical journal, researchers analyzed blood samples from 46 healthy young or middle-aged adults after receiving two doses, and then 6 months after the second dose.

“Our study shows vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine induces high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the original vaccine strain, but these levels drop by nearly 10-fold by 7 months,” the researchers told Reuters.

In about half of the adults, neutralizing antibodies were undetectable at 6 months after the second dose, particularly against coronavirus variants such as Delta, Beta, and Mu.

Neutralizing antibodies only make up part of the body’s immune defense against the virus, Reuters noted, but they are still “critically important” in protecting against coronavirus infections.

“These findings suggest that administering a booster dose at around 6 to 7 months following the initial immunization will likely enhance protection,” the study authors wrote.

BioNTech said a new vaccine formula will likely be needed by mid-2022 to protect against future mutations of the virus, according to the Financial Times.

“This year, [a different vaccine] is completely unneeded, but by mid-next year, it could be a different situation,” Ugur Sahin, MD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, told the news outlet.

Current variants, namely the Delta variant, are more contagious than the original coronavirus strain but not different enough to evade current vaccines, he said. But new strains may be able to evade boosters.

“This virus will stay, and the virus will further adapt,” Dr. Sahin said. “This is a continuous evolution, and that evolution has just started.”

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

Antibody levels may wane after 7 months for people who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a new study published on the bioRxiv preprint server.

In the study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or formally published in a medical journal, researchers analyzed blood samples from 46 healthy young or middle-aged adults after receiving two doses, and then 6 months after the second dose.

“Our study shows vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine induces high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the original vaccine strain, but these levels drop by nearly 10-fold by 7 months,” the researchers told Reuters.

In about half of the adults, neutralizing antibodies were undetectable at 6 months after the second dose, particularly against coronavirus variants such as Delta, Beta, and Mu.

Neutralizing antibodies only make up part of the body’s immune defense against the virus, Reuters noted, but they are still “critically important” in protecting against coronavirus infections.

“These findings suggest that administering a booster dose at around 6 to 7 months following the initial immunization will likely enhance protection,” the study authors wrote.

BioNTech said a new vaccine formula will likely be needed by mid-2022 to protect against future mutations of the virus, according to the Financial Times.

“This year, [a different vaccine] is completely unneeded, but by mid-next year, it could be a different situation,” Ugur Sahin, MD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, told the news outlet.

Current variants, namely the Delta variant, are more contagious than the original coronavirus strain but not different enough to evade current vaccines, he said. But new strains may be able to evade boosters.

“This virus will stay, and the virus will further adapt,” Dr. Sahin said. “This is a continuous evolution, and that evolution has just started.”

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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