Ob.Gyn. News

In the first revision to its guidance on the management of osteoporosis in a decade, the North American Menopause Society has issued an updated position statement addressing evolving evidence on osteoporosis issues ranging from screening and risk assessment to appropriate use of preventive therapy in postmenopausal women.

“Since the 2010 statement, there have been important new developments in our field, including better delineation of risk factors for fracture, resulting in better strategies for assessing fracture risk,” Michael R. McClung, MD, who is a NAMS board member and colead of the editorial panel for the 2021 position statement, told this news organization. Dr. McClung is also director emeritus of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

“There is much more information about the long-term safety of therapies,” he added. Dr. McClung also noted “the availability of four new drugs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and clinical experience informing us of the effects of using different treatments in various sequences.”
 

Osteoporosis is substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated

A basis for the update, recently published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society, is the need to tackle the troubling fact that approximately half of postmenopausal women will experience a fracture related to osteoporosis in their lifetime, yet the condition is “substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated,” NAMS underscores.

With that in mind, osteoporosis should be considered by practitioners treating menopausal and postmenopausal women at all levels of care.

“All physicians and advanced care providers caring for postmenopausal women should be comfortable assessing and managing their patients with, or at risk for, fractures,” Dr. McClung added.
 

Osteoporosis prevention in young menopausal women

The NAMS statement covers a broad range of issues, and while most recommendations generally follow those of other societies’ guidelines, a unique aspect is the emphasis on preventing osteoporosis in young menopausal women with estrogen or other drugs.

While underscoring that all menopausal women should be encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles, with good diets and physical activity to reduce the risk of bone loss and fractures, pharmacologic interventions also have a role, NAMS says.

Though long an issue of debate, NAMS voices support for estrogen therapy as having an important role in osteoporosis prevention, as estrogen deficiency is the principal cause of bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“Hormone therapy is the most appropriate choice to prevent bone loss at the time of menopause for healthy women, particularly those who have menopause symptoms,” the group states. Drug interventions are specifically supported in women with premature menopause, at least until the average age of natural menopause, in addition to those with low bone mineral density (BMD) (T-score < –1.0) and those experiencing relatively rapid bone loss related to acute estrogen deficiency in the menopause transition or on discontinuing estrogen therapy.

“Although using drugs to prevent osteoporosis is not included in national osteoporosis guidelines, a strong clinical argument can be made for doing so, especially in women who come to menopause with low bone mass,” the report states.

And therapy is also recommended if patients have a low BMD and other risk factors for fracture, such as family history, but do not meet the criteria for osteoporosis treatment.

Ultimately, clinicians should work with patients when deciding the options, Dr. McClung said. 

“After carefully weighing the small risks associated with hormone therapy or other therapies begun at the time of menopause, menopause practitioners and their patients can and should make informed decisions about the use of Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to prevent osteoporosis in women who are at risk for developing that condition,” he noted, adding that his view on the matter is his own and not necessarily that of NAMS.
 

New treatments endorsed for high-risk patients to avoid ‘bone attack’

While most patients are treated for osteoporosis with antiremodeling drugs such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, NAMS endorses “a new paradigm of beginning treatment with a bone-building agent followed by an antiremodeling agent” for women at very high risk of fracture.

“Consider osteoanabolic therapies for patients at very high risk of fracture, including older women with recent fractures, T-scores –3.0 and lower, or multiple other risk factors,” the statement suggests.

Among those at highest risk are women who have sustained a first fracture.

“A recent fracture in a postmenopausal woman is the strongest risk factor for another fracture,” Dr. McClung said.

In fact, “having a fracture should be thought of and assessed as a ‘bone attack,’ ” he asserted.

Therapy is recommended in such cases to rapidly increase bone density and reduce their subsequent fracture risk.

“For these patients, osteoanabolic or bone-building agents are more effective than bisphosphonates and are recommended as initial therapy,” Dr. McClung noted.

Treatment discontinuation?

On the issue of drug holidays and when or whether to stop therapy, as no therapies cure osteoporosis, medications should not be permanently stopped, even if bone density increases, NAMS recommends.

“By analogy, we do not stop diabetes therapy when A1c levels become normal,” Dr. McClung noted.

“Because the benefits of therapy on bone density and fracture protection wane, quickly for nonbisphosphonates and more slowly with bisphosphonates, short-term therapy, for instance 5 years, is not optimal treatment,” he said.

While the short-term interruption of bisphosphonate therapy may be considered in some patients, “the concept of ‘drug holidays’ does not pertain to nonbisphosphonate drugs,” Dr. McClung said.

NAMS adds that management of therapeutic choices should instead be ongoing.

“During therapy, reevaluate the treatment goals and the choice of medication on an ongoing basis through periodic medical examination and follow-up BMD testing,” NAMS recommends.

In terms of assessment, the measurement of bone mineral density while on treatment can gauge the current risk of fracture, and NAMS supports the use of the T-score at the hip as an appropriate clinical target in guiding choices of therapy.

Ultimately, “effective tools for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk are available, and well-studied strategies exist for managing bone health in women at both low and high risk of fracture,” NAMS concludes.

“By individualizing treatment approaches and monitoring and adjusting those approaches if the clinical picture changes, the consequences of osteoporosis on a menopausal woman’s activity and well-being can be minimized.”

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant, and honorarium for speaking from Amgen and Alexon. He serves on the boards of NAMS and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

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

In the first revision to its guidance on the management of osteoporosis in a decade, the North American Menopause Society has issued an updated position statement addressing evolving evidence on osteoporosis issues ranging from screening and risk assessment to appropriate use of preventive therapy in postmenopausal women.

“Since the 2010 statement, there have been important new developments in our field, including better delineation of risk factors for fracture, resulting in better strategies for assessing fracture risk,” Michael R. McClung, MD, who is a NAMS board member and colead of the editorial panel for the 2021 position statement, told this news organization. Dr. McClung is also director emeritus of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

“There is much more information about the long-term safety of therapies,” he added. Dr. McClung also noted “the availability of four new drugs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and clinical experience informing us of the effects of using different treatments in various sequences.”
 

Osteoporosis is substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated

A basis for the update, recently published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society, is the need to tackle the troubling fact that approximately half of postmenopausal women will experience a fracture related to osteoporosis in their lifetime, yet the condition is “substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated,” NAMS underscores.

With that in mind, osteoporosis should be considered by practitioners treating menopausal and postmenopausal women at all levels of care.

“All physicians and advanced care providers caring for postmenopausal women should be comfortable assessing and managing their patients with, or at risk for, fractures,” Dr. McClung added.
 

Osteoporosis prevention in young menopausal women

The NAMS statement covers a broad range of issues, and while most recommendations generally follow those of other societies’ guidelines, a unique aspect is the emphasis on preventing osteoporosis in young menopausal women with estrogen or other drugs.

While underscoring that all menopausal women should be encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles, with good diets and physical activity to reduce the risk of bone loss and fractures, pharmacologic interventions also have a role, NAMS says.

Though long an issue of debate, NAMS voices support for estrogen therapy as having an important role in osteoporosis prevention, as estrogen deficiency is the principal cause of bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“Hormone therapy is the most appropriate choice to prevent bone loss at the time of menopause for healthy women, particularly those who have menopause symptoms,” the group states. Drug interventions are specifically supported in women with premature menopause, at least until the average age of natural menopause, in addition to those with low bone mineral density (BMD) (T-score < –1.0) and those experiencing relatively rapid bone loss related to acute estrogen deficiency in the menopause transition or on discontinuing estrogen therapy.

“Although using drugs to prevent osteoporosis is not included in national osteoporosis guidelines, a strong clinical argument can be made for doing so, especially in women who come to menopause with low bone mass,” the report states.

And therapy is also recommended if patients have a low BMD and other risk factors for fracture, such as family history, but do not meet the criteria for osteoporosis treatment.

Ultimately, clinicians should work with patients when deciding the options, Dr. McClung said. 

“After carefully weighing the small risks associated with hormone therapy or other therapies begun at the time of menopause, menopause practitioners and their patients can and should make informed decisions about the use of Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to prevent osteoporosis in women who are at risk for developing that condition,” he noted, adding that his view on the matter is his own and not necessarily that of NAMS.
 

New treatments endorsed for high-risk patients to avoid ‘bone attack’

While most patients are treated for osteoporosis with antiremodeling drugs such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, NAMS endorses “a new paradigm of beginning treatment with a bone-building agent followed by an antiremodeling agent” for women at very high risk of fracture.

“Consider osteoanabolic therapies for patients at very high risk of fracture, including older women with recent fractures, T-scores –3.0 and lower, or multiple other risk factors,” the statement suggests.

Among those at highest risk are women who have sustained a first fracture.

“A recent fracture in a postmenopausal woman is the strongest risk factor for another fracture,” Dr. McClung said.

In fact, “having a fracture should be thought of and assessed as a ‘bone attack,’ ” he asserted.

Therapy is recommended in such cases to rapidly increase bone density and reduce their subsequent fracture risk.

“For these patients, osteoanabolic or bone-building agents are more effective than bisphosphonates and are recommended as initial therapy,” Dr. McClung noted.

Treatment discontinuation?

On the issue of drug holidays and when or whether to stop therapy, as no therapies cure osteoporosis, medications should not be permanently stopped, even if bone density increases, NAMS recommends.

“By analogy, we do not stop diabetes therapy when A1c levels become normal,” Dr. McClung noted.

“Because the benefits of therapy on bone density and fracture protection wane, quickly for nonbisphosphonates and more slowly with bisphosphonates, short-term therapy, for instance 5 years, is not optimal treatment,” he said.

While the short-term interruption of bisphosphonate therapy may be considered in some patients, “the concept of ‘drug holidays’ does not pertain to nonbisphosphonate drugs,” Dr. McClung said.

NAMS adds that management of therapeutic choices should instead be ongoing.

“During therapy, reevaluate the treatment goals and the choice of medication on an ongoing basis through periodic medical examination and follow-up BMD testing,” NAMS recommends.

In terms of assessment, the measurement of bone mineral density while on treatment can gauge the current risk of fracture, and NAMS supports the use of the T-score at the hip as an appropriate clinical target in guiding choices of therapy.

Ultimately, “effective tools for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk are available, and well-studied strategies exist for managing bone health in women at both low and high risk of fracture,” NAMS concludes.

“By individualizing treatment approaches and monitoring and adjusting those approaches if the clinical picture changes, the consequences of osteoporosis on a menopausal woman’s activity and well-being can be minimized.”

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant, and honorarium for speaking from Amgen and Alexon. He serves on the boards of NAMS and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

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

In the first revision to its guidance on the management of osteoporosis in a decade, the North American Menopause Society has issued an updated position statement addressing evolving evidence on osteoporosis issues ranging from screening and risk assessment to appropriate use of preventive therapy in postmenopausal women.

“Since the 2010 statement, there have been important new developments in our field, including better delineation of risk factors for fracture, resulting in better strategies for assessing fracture risk,” Michael R. McClung, MD, who is a NAMS board member and colead of the editorial panel for the 2021 position statement, told this news organization. Dr. McClung is also director emeritus of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

“There is much more information about the long-term safety of therapies,” he added. Dr. McClung also noted “the availability of four new drugs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and clinical experience informing us of the effects of using different treatments in various sequences.”
 

Osteoporosis is substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated

A basis for the update, recently published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society, is the need to tackle the troubling fact that approximately half of postmenopausal women will experience a fracture related to osteoporosis in their lifetime, yet the condition is “substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated,” NAMS underscores.

With that in mind, osteoporosis should be considered by practitioners treating menopausal and postmenopausal women at all levels of care.

“All physicians and advanced care providers caring for postmenopausal women should be comfortable assessing and managing their patients with, or at risk for, fractures,” Dr. McClung added.
 

Osteoporosis prevention in young menopausal women

The NAMS statement covers a broad range of issues, and while most recommendations generally follow those of other societies’ guidelines, a unique aspect is the emphasis on preventing osteoporosis in young menopausal women with estrogen or other drugs.

While underscoring that all menopausal women should be encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles, with good diets and physical activity to reduce the risk of bone loss and fractures, pharmacologic interventions also have a role, NAMS says.

Though long an issue of debate, NAMS voices support for estrogen therapy as having an important role in osteoporosis prevention, as estrogen deficiency is the principal cause of bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“Hormone therapy is the most appropriate choice to prevent bone loss at the time of menopause for healthy women, particularly those who have menopause symptoms,” the group states. Drug interventions are specifically supported in women with premature menopause, at least until the average age of natural menopause, in addition to those with low bone mineral density (BMD) (T-score < –1.0) and those experiencing relatively rapid bone loss related to acute estrogen deficiency in the menopause transition or on discontinuing estrogen therapy.

“Although using drugs to prevent osteoporosis is not included in national osteoporosis guidelines, a strong clinical argument can be made for doing so, especially in women who come to menopause with low bone mass,” the report states.

And therapy is also recommended if patients have a low BMD and other risk factors for fracture, such as family history, but do not meet the criteria for osteoporosis treatment.

Ultimately, clinicians should work with patients when deciding the options, Dr. McClung said. 

“After carefully weighing the small risks associated with hormone therapy or other therapies begun at the time of menopause, menopause practitioners and their patients can and should make informed decisions about the use of Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to prevent osteoporosis in women who are at risk for developing that condition,” he noted, adding that his view on the matter is his own and not necessarily that of NAMS.
 

New treatments endorsed for high-risk patients to avoid ‘bone attack’

While most patients are treated for osteoporosis with antiremodeling drugs such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, NAMS endorses “a new paradigm of beginning treatment with a bone-building agent followed by an antiremodeling agent” for women at very high risk of fracture.

“Consider osteoanabolic therapies for patients at very high risk of fracture, including older women with recent fractures, T-scores –3.0 and lower, or multiple other risk factors,” the statement suggests.

Among those at highest risk are women who have sustained a first fracture.

“A recent fracture in a postmenopausal woman is the strongest risk factor for another fracture,” Dr. McClung said.

In fact, “having a fracture should be thought of and assessed as a ‘bone attack,’ ” he asserted.

Therapy is recommended in such cases to rapidly increase bone density and reduce their subsequent fracture risk.

“For these patients, osteoanabolic or bone-building agents are more effective than bisphosphonates and are recommended as initial therapy,” Dr. McClung noted.

Treatment discontinuation?

On the issue of drug holidays and when or whether to stop therapy, as no therapies cure osteoporosis, medications should not be permanently stopped, even if bone density increases, NAMS recommends.

“By analogy, we do not stop diabetes therapy when A1c levels become normal,” Dr. McClung noted.

“Because the benefits of therapy on bone density and fracture protection wane, quickly for nonbisphosphonates and more slowly with bisphosphonates, short-term therapy, for instance 5 years, is not optimal treatment,” he said.

While the short-term interruption of bisphosphonate therapy may be considered in some patients, “the concept of ‘drug holidays’ does not pertain to nonbisphosphonate drugs,” Dr. McClung said.

NAMS adds that management of therapeutic choices should instead be ongoing.

“During therapy, reevaluate the treatment goals and the choice of medication on an ongoing basis through periodic medical examination and follow-up BMD testing,” NAMS recommends.

In terms of assessment, the measurement of bone mineral density while on treatment can gauge the current risk of fracture, and NAMS supports the use of the T-score at the hip as an appropriate clinical target in guiding choices of therapy.

Ultimately, “effective tools for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk are available, and well-studied strategies exist for managing bone health in women at both low and high risk of fracture,” NAMS concludes.

“By individualizing treatment approaches and monitoring and adjusting those approaches if the clinical picture changes, the consequences of osteoporosis on a menopausal woman’s activity and well-being can be minimized.”

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant, and honorarium for speaking from Amgen and Alexon. He serves on the boards of NAMS and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Accelerated approvals of oncology drugs based on response data are controversial, because subsequent trials have often failed to show a clinical benefit. This has led to a spate of withdrawals of such accelerated approvals, including those for nivolumab in liver cancer and pembrolizumab in small cell lung cancer.

But one such accelerated approval has now been converted to a full approval, with a small label change, by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new full approval is for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line use for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy. (The small label change is that mention of PD-L1 status and testing for this have been removed.)

The move is in accordance with recommendations by experts at a recent meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. They voted 5-3 in favor of this accelerated approval staying. They also voted 10-1 in favor of another immunotherapy, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), for the same indication.

One of the arguments put forward to support these accelerated approvals staying in place is that there is an unmet need in this population of patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy.

But this argument doesn’t hold water – the mere existence of one of these negates the “unmet need” argument for the other, wrote Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., in a commentary on why the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is broken.

“Even if there is a genuine ‘unmet need’ in a particular setting, these drugs did not meet the standard of improving survival. An unmet need doesn’t imply that the treatment void should be filled with a drug that provides nothing of value to patients,” Dr. Gyawali wrote.

“When we talk about an unmet need, we are speaking of drugs that provide a clinical benefit; any true unmet needs will continue to exist despite maintaining these approvals,” he argued.

After obtaining the accelerated approval for pembrolizumab for patients with bladder cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, the manufacturer (Merck) carried out a subsequent clinical trial but conducted it in patients who were eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-361). However, this trial did not meet its prespecified dual primary endpoints of overall survival or progression-free survival in comparison with standard of care chemotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

“We are working with urgency to advance studies to help more patients living with bladder and other types of cancer,” commented Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories. The company said it has “an extensive clinical development in bladder cancer” and is exploring pembrolizumab use in many settings.

In addition to the new full approval for the first-line indication for patients who are ineligible for platinum chemotherapy, pembrolizumab has two other approved indications in this therapeutic area: the treatment of patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma or mUC who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy; and the treatment of patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ, with or without papillary tumors, who are ineligible for or have elected not to undergo cystectomy.

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

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.