Ob.Gyn. News

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at [email protected].

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at [email protected].

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at [email protected].

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload

There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Described by journalist David Shenk as “data smog” in his 1997 book of the same name, the idea is clear: There is only so much information we can assimilate.

Even after years of using EHRs and with government-implemented incentives that promote “meaningful use,” physicians are still struggling with EHRs. Additionally, many have expressed frustration with the connectedness that EHRs provide and lament their inability to ever really “leave the office.” As more and more data become available to physicians, the challenge of how to assimilate and act on those data will continue to grow. The addition of patient-provided health statistics will only make information overload worse, with clinicians will feeling an ever-growing burden to know, understand, and act on this information.

Unless we develop systems to sort, filter, and prioritize the flow of information, there is potential for liability from not acting on the amount of virtual information doctors receive. This new risk for already fatigued and overburdened physicians combined with an increase in the amount of virtual information at doctors’ fingertips may lead to the value of patient data being lost.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload

There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Described by journalist David Shenk as “data smog” in his 1997 book of the same name, the idea is clear: There is only so much information we can assimilate.

Even after years of using EHRs and with government-implemented incentives that promote “meaningful use,” physicians are still struggling with EHRs. Additionally, many have expressed frustration with the connectedness that EHRs provide and lament their inability to ever really “leave the office.” As more and more data become available to physicians, the challenge of how to assimilate and act on those data will continue to grow. The addition of patient-provided health statistics will only make information overload worse, with clinicians will feeling an ever-growing burden to know, understand, and act on this information.

Unless we develop systems to sort, filter, and prioritize the flow of information, there is potential for liability from not acting on the amount of virtual information doctors receive. This new risk for already fatigued and overburdened physicians combined with an increase in the amount of virtual information at doctors’ fingertips may lead to the value of patient data being lost.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload