Ob.Gyn. News

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

Historically the standard treatment approach for advanced ovarian cancer has been to perform up-front primary cytoreduction surgery or primary “debulking” surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of surgery was to establish cytoreduction of the tumor to optimal (<1 cm³ disease) or, ideally, complete (no gross residual disease). While PDS has long been considered the default treatment approach, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, typically after three or four cycles of chemotherapy, was the alternative strategy if it was anticipated or known that an “optimal” cytoreduction was not possible, feasible, or associated with acceptable morbidity. However, NACT was, and to some degree still is, widely considered the inferior strategy, reserved for patients with the worst prognosis. While mounting data challenges the inherent superiority of PDS, it still largely remains the default.

Why was PDS considered superior?

Why was PDS for advanced ovarian cancer considered a superior sequencing when it is so rarely considered appropriate for other disseminated cancers? This was born from the observation among retrospective data showing that survival was best when surgery was performed first, and when surgery was able to remove most or all visible disease (“complete” or “optimal” cytoreduction), NACT was performed.¹ Several theories were proposed to explain the observations. These included the theory that bulky tumors contained avascular regions that would be less well accessed by chemotherapy, as well as the notion that chemotherapy exerts a constant fraction of kill on tumor cells, and if there is a lower burden of tumor cells to begin with, fewer cycles of chemotherapy will be necessary to eliminate all cells. Coupled with this was the notion that, if fewer cycles of chemotherapy are necessary, there would be less opportunity for development of drug resistance. Other theories such as the inflammatory effects of surgery impacting immune-mediated kill of malignant cells also are reported. These theories were largely found in the pages of textbooks, only supported by heavily biased observational series and not in the results of elegant translational studies. Of course, the observed superiority of PDS in these cohort studies was not surprising given that the patients who were historically selected for NACT had their treatment course chosen specifically for their poor prognostic factors (large volume, unresectable disease, poor performance status, and comorbidities). These “studies” were self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anecdotally I can attest that most patients are enthusiastic about a primary surgical approach to their advanced cancer. There is something concretely satisfying for patient and surgeon alike in the physical act of removing disease. As surgeons, if we believe that our added surgical effort will be rewarded with better outcomes for the patients, we will “try harder” in the operating room in order for them to do better. However, mounting data challenges whether it is our aggressive surgical effort as much as it is primary tumor biology that is the driver of prognosis in this disease. And aggressive primary surgery may add little other than perioperative morbidity.
 

Why that perspective may be changing

A culmination of many years of sophisticated translational research led by Anil Sood, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, established there are fundamental biologic differences in the tumors of patients with ovarian cancer whose disease is amenable or not to a complete cytoreduction with PDS.² In their work, the researchers sampled tumors from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been triaged either to PDS or NACT based on a standardized, validated laparoscopic algorithm that predicted a high probability of complete surgical resection. They performed pretreatment biopsies in both groups of patients and conducted a range of “omics” analyses to stratify these two subsets of patients – those who had a disease burden amenable to complete surgical resection versus those whose presenting disease burden exceeded an acceptable surgical effort). They identified several key molecular differences in the pretreatment biopsies of these two groups of patients, including alterations which might explain better or worse responses to therapy. These results suggest that the tumors of patients who go on to have successful PDS to no gross residual disease have different tumor biology to begin with. Otherwise said, perhaps it is favorable tumor biology that is associated with both a disease burden that is more amenable to both primary complete cytoreduction and better oncologic outcomes, rather than the surgical effort in and of itself.

This finding is supported by a study in which ovarian cancer survival outcomes were stratified by disease burden, surgical complexity scores, and postoperative residual disease among patients who were enrolled in GOG-182.³ Investigators led by Neil Horowitz, MD, created scores for surgical complexity, disease burden, and residual disease. They observed that the radicality of surgery (complexity score) was not an independent determinant of survival, but rather, patients who presented with a lower disease burden that required a less radical surgery had the best oncologic outcomes.

If the complexity of surgery does not influence outcomes as much as the predetermined, unmodifiable tumor biology, how should surgeons make decisions about the sequencing of treatment? Over the past 10 years, four randomized trials have been completed including more than 1,600 patients randomized to either PDS or NACT.^4-7 All four have found no difference in the oncologic outcomes (progression-free or overall survival) between patients when randomized to PDS or NACT. While the statistical designs vary slightly, some being designed to look for noninferiority and others for superiority, they all showed that the sequence in which surgery and chemotherapy was performed mattered less than whether optimal cytoreduction was achieved when surgery was performed. As stated above, this phenomenon seems to be best determined by unmodifiable tumor biology. Unsurprisingly, these studies also have consistently found that perioperative outcomes (e.g., surgical complications, length of stay, death) were worse with PDS because of the higher surgical complexity that it demands. In the most recent SCORPION trial, rates of major postoperative complications in the PDS group were 25.9%, compared with only 7.6% in the NACT group (P < .0001) and all of the deaths from postoperative complications occurred in the PDS group at a rate of 8.3% (7 of 84 patients).⁷

Therefore, the wealth of data supports that oncologic outcomes are equivalent, and perioperative outcomes are improved for patients who undergo NACT for advanced, bulky ovarian cancer.
 

Why physicians still are questioning

Unfortunately, because ofthe nature of the disease, these prospective trials include heterogeneous populations of disease presentation, surgeon skill, and hospital settings. They have been criticized for achieving “low” rates of complete or optimal cytoreduction in the PDS arm. They also identified subgroups of patients who may do better with PDS (such as those with lower-volume stage IIIC disease) and those who have better outcomes with NACT (patients with stage IV disease). Therefore, not satisfied that we have definitively answered the question, a fifth randomized study, the TRUST trial, is underway.⁸ This study includes surgeons at high-volume institutions, purported to have the highest degree of skill and quality in executing radical debulking procedures. Perhaps this fifth trial will show that, if performed in the most skilled hands and quality settings, PDS is preferable to NACT. Perhaps. However, the generalizability of these results will be poor for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer, most of whom will have limited access to these highest-volume surgeons.

What can be agreed upon is that an individualized and nuanced approach is best for advanced ovarian cancer. There will be some patients who benefit from PDS (e.g., healthy, young patients with low-volume disease). However, for most patients, the bulk of prospective and translational research supports NACT as the default treatment course, associated with noninferior survival and superior perioperative outcomes (including postoperative death). While it may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, one could argue that NACT should be the default strategy, and surgeons should look for reasons to “opt in” to PDS in special circumstances guided by biomarkers such as imaging, tumor markers, clinical factors, and surgical findings.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.025.

2. Cell Rep. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.066.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106.

4. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.

5. Lancet. 2015 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.

6. Eur J Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.

7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.

8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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