Ob.Gyn. News

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Atezolizumab failed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial of patients with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
 

Explaining the negative results

The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.

Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.

Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.

There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.

It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
 

Patient and treatment details

IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.

Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).

In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).

Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.