User login
‘Shed the Lead’ and the Injuries. Should Cath Labs Go Lead-Free?
“I’d probably be a quadriplegic,” Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, an interventional cardiologist, said when asked what would have happened if two top neurosurgeons at his hospital hadn’t rushed him to the operating room (OR) for a cervical decompression in February this year.
Dr. Kereiakes had orthopedic problems for years due to the heavy lead aprons he wore in the cath lab. He regularly dosed himself with steroids for disc pain so he could stand up straight and continue to do procedures. “Several times a year I’d go on a tapering dose of prednisone of about 10 days to 2 weeks, and this would take care of it.”
But then his luck ran out. “I’m told in retrospect that my gait — the way I walked — was different, and I was also having some myoclonic jerking in my legs when I was going to sleep. I thought it was peculiar, but I didn’t really tie it together that this was an upper tract injury response.”
At a restaurant with his wife, he found himself unable to sign the check. “I couldn’t write my name.” By the next morning, “I had a floppy right foot, and as I turned around to put my scrubs on, everything fell apart. My arms began to not function and my legs — I couldn’t walk.”
Admitted to The Christ Hospital Heart & Vascular Center in Cincinnati — the very hospital he works in — Dr. Kereiakes had CT and MRI scans and consulted with neurosurgeons he counts as friends. He was given extremely high doses of intravenous steroids. “But instead of getting better, the pain came back, and I started posturing — when you posture, it looks like a praying mantis, your arms are flexed up, your wrists are flexed, and your fingers are spasmed together.” His wife and the nurses couldn’t pull his fingers open, “so they rolled me back, and the posturing started to go away.”
This prompted the neurosurgeons to bring him to the OR “by 6 a.m., and they are ‘unzipping me in the back’ to basically get my spinal cord off my spine. I had cord compression at C2-3 and C 6-7.”
Postop, Dr. Kereiakes couldn’t move his right leg and couldn’t close any of his fingers. “You lose control of things like bladder and bowel function — you have a catheter in — and you say to yourself, ‘How am I going to live like this?.’ ”
The quick-thinking of his neurosurgeons prevented permanent paralysis, and after a long 6-month recovery, Dr. Kereiakes is back in the cath lab, performing procedures. But crucially, he will no longer have to wear a lead apron.
Ending Careers Early. A Catalyst for Change
Typically, interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists, electrophysiologists, and others working in labs where they are exposed to ionizing radiation wear lead aprons and garments, such as thyroid collars, leaded caps, and glasses, to protect them during procedures.
Long-term occupational exposure to radiation is linked to cataracts; brain tumors; cancers, including leukemia, multiple myelomas, lymphomas, and thyroid cancers; and left-sided breast cancers in women because the aprons don’t always cover the left side of the chest adequately.
Individual states set the standards in terms of the thickness of the lead required, varying from 0.25- to 0.5-mm–lead-equivalent aprons, which reduce exposure by 85%-95%. Radiation safety officers monitor the badges that staff wear to record their radiation exposure and will warn them when their levels are too high.
But — as Dr. Kereiakes freely admits — ambitious interventionalists don’t always take much notice. “They would come and say, ‘Hey your badge is really high,’ and so I would just put it in a drawer and carry on,” he said. “When you are younger, you feel immortal.”
James B. Hermiller Jr., MD, president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI), agrees: “The feeling is that, with lead, you are indestructible, and no one wants to show any weakness.”
Another occupational hazard related to those protective lead aprons was also being ignored, that of orthopedic injury. In surveys done by SCAI, around half of interventional cardiology respondents report cervical, lumbar, hip, knee, or ankle joint injuries.
While Dr. Kereiakes recognizes likely bias — with those afflicted more likely to complete these surveys — he believes that the problem is huge and “is ending careers early.”
“It’s interesting that radiation is at the forefront of protection and occupational safety, but you are much more likely to be taken out of work because of orthopedic injury,” explained Dr. Hermiller, director of Structural Heart Program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
His own story “is not as compelling as Dean’s, but 17 years ago, I ruptured a disk in my lower spine and had emergent surgery and I now need a neck surgery.”
Dr. Hermiller’s hospital, too, has purchased multiple radiation protection systems. “If you want to do this job for 30 years, you have to protect yourself early and at all times,” he said.
His focus as SCAI president is to help get these protection systems in place at more hospitals.
But significant challenges remain, not least the cost, which can be $150,000-$200,000 per lab. He estimates that fewer than 10% US hospitals with cath and other labs using radiation have installed such systems.
Most systems are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved because they are not attached to equipment in the cath lab, something that Nadia Sutton, MD, MPH, chair of the SCAI Women in Innovations committee, said many physicians are not aware of. “The companies [marketing the systems] are telling us that we can ‘shed our lead,’ ” she said. “It could be safe, but we are using the data provided by the companies.”
How Do the Lead-Free Systems Work?
Currently, there are three main radiation protection systems available. The Protego Radiation Protection System (Image Diagnostics), the EggNest Protect (Egg Medical), and the Rampart (Rampart ic).
According to Dr. Kereiakes, they differ somewhat in whether they allow immediate access to the patient or whether you can see and interact with them. He explained that in high-risk procedures, easy access is desirable. “If you get a perforation or tamponade and the patient suddenly goes ‘out,’ you need to be able to get to them quickly, and you can’t be spending a lot of time taking the shielding down.”
Dr. Kereiakes was recovering in the hospital when his colleagues plumped for the EggNest system. He thinks they chose it because it offers visibility and access to the patient and “takes 4-5 minutes, maximum, to set up.” So far, he agrees with the choice but wants to “give it a real, volume-driven try.”
If they are satisfied with the system, the hospital will order six more by the end of the year, he said. A significant financial undertaking, he acknowledged.
Dr. Hermiller cited data for the Rampart system showing a 95% reduction in radiation without any lead. For an average 1-GRAY radiation exposure case, “if you wear lead, you reach the maximum dose of radiation around 850 cases in a year. If you do it with one of these protection systems, in this case Rampart, you can do 14,500 cases in a year. Not that anyone would do that [many].”
The Protego system has very similar data, he noted. The systems protect the operator and whoever is scrubbing in at the table, so those on the other side of the protector still need to wear lead, Dr. Hermiller stressed.
Data for the EggNest Protect are available but are as yet unpublished.
Dr. Hermiller acknowledged that there is still a long way to go in getting hospitals to spend the money on these systems, but he thinks cath lab operators will drive the change.
“At our SCAI meeting this year, the biggest attendance was at a session about a lead-free cath lab environment.”
Regulation at the State Level
Despite the excitement among the profession, Dr. Sutton — director of Interventional Cardiology Research in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee — still has concerns about the lack of FDA regulation.
There is one newer system, called the Radiaction shield system, that attaches to the existing equipment so that is regulated by the FDA as a class II device, she noted. “But it is my understanding that the Protego, Rampart, and EggNest are Class I Exempt. That is the same category as Band-Aid.”
James Beabout, MBA, chief marketing officer, Egg Medical, confirmed that the EggNest “is classified as a Class I device which does not require FDA approval. That leaves regulation to each state regarding the requirements for protective aprons.” And Mark Hansen, vice president business development, of Image Diagnostics — the manufacturer of the Protego Radiation Protection System — confirmed that “the real governance is at the state level.”
The company petitions the state regulator for an exemption letter to the wearing of lead aprons. “In some cases, the state will come to the site directly and validate the systems integrity and to confirm their decision. Once the exemption is granted, the state sends a document, and it’s the responsibility of the sites’ Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to change the labs safety process and rules,” Mr. Hansen explained.
“What really makes this work is a real-time dosimetry from Fluke Medical. Staff wear one to two badges that instantly detects exposure,” Mr. Hansen stressed.
Similarly, said Mr. Beabout, Egg Medical has data from over 1000 real-world cases collected using real-time dosimetry (RaySafe i3 system) which demonstrate that it is possible to get some people in the room out of protective aprons, where allowed. They recommend real-time dosimetry anytime people are removing their aprons, “since the patient BMI, x-ray system type/age, and complexity of the case all have a significant effect on the radiation dose in each case.” Their goal is for exposure to be zero or as close to zero as possible, “otherwise we recommend use of protective aprons. With the EggNest, operators can use much lighter aprons (0.125 mm sold by Burlington Medical) than what has traditionally been used, so that is also an option,” he said.
Dr. Hermiller said the SCAI plan is to produce several statements on going lead-free, with all other interested professional societies — such as those representing interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons, as well as all the major cardiology societies.
“We want to make an intellectual foundation for this,” Dr. Hermiller explained. Guidelines “are in the making,” he said, with the expectation that they will be ready by the end of this year or early next year.
SCAI will also work with the 50 US states to facilitate lead-free labs, “as each one has a different way to be approved to go without lead,” he noted.
“This is not going to go away, it’s going to build in force, through the societies,” said Dr. Kereiakes. “It’s a matter of workplace safety.” He doesn’t think that the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration does much to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians in the cath and other labs.
Dr. Hermiller agreed: “I always say that if we were a GM car plant, they would shut us down.”
Dr. Hermiller also stressed the expense of having doctors and other staff off work with occupation-related injuries. He has already observed that “it’s much easier to recruit cath lab staff to a place where they don’t have to wear lead.”
He anticipates that the next generation of physicians “are going to demand places where they don’t have to wear lead.” He is also hopeful that it will result in more women choosing interventional cardiology: “Women are safe in the cath lab with current lead systems, but if we could move to this, there would be even more women participating.”
Pregnancy Safe in the Cath Lab
Dr. Sutton reiterated his point: “The number-one message that I want to get across is that it is considered safe for the unborn baby, being in the cath lab, under lead,” she said, noting that there are very good data that the amount of lead that is required by states results in negligible radiation exposure to the developing fetus.
She had her children before working in the cath lab, “but I’ve heard from other women: It’s heavy and its sweaty for prolonged periods of time, but it can be done and you can get through it,” she said. Although the promise of radiation protection systems “is exciting, we have to approach this with some level of caution or awareness,” she said. “Cardiologists come from a cardiology background. We are not radiologists who go through a radiology residency, like IRs do. They get a lot of training on radiation exposure and what it means,” Dr. Sutton stressed.
Dr. Kereiakes, for his part, remains enthusiastic. He returned to the cath lab in August, just 6 months after his brush with near quadriplegia. “This is what I’ve spent my life doing and I love doing it, and I’m not ready to quit.”
Dr. Hermiller, Dr. Kereiakes, and Dr. Sutton reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“I’d probably be a quadriplegic,” Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, an interventional cardiologist, said when asked what would have happened if two top neurosurgeons at his hospital hadn’t rushed him to the operating room (OR) for a cervical decompression in February this year.
Dr. Kereiakes had orthopedic problems for years due to the heavy lead aprons he wore in the cath lab. He regularly dosed himself with steroids for disc pain so he could stand up straight and continue to do procedures. “Several times a year I’d go on a tapering dose of prednisone of about 10 days to 2 weeks, and this would take care of it.”
But then his luck ran out. “I’m told in retrospect that my gait — the way I walked — was different, and I was also having some myoclonic jerking in my legs when I was going to sleep. I thought it was peculiar, but I didn’t really tie it together that this was an upper tract injury response.”
At a restaurant with his wife, he found himself unable to sign the check. “I couldn’t write my name.” By the next morning, “I had a floppy right foot, and as I turned around to put my scrubs on, everything fell apart. My arms began to not function and my legs — I couldn’t walk.”
Admitted to The Christ Hospital Heart & Vascular Center in Cincinnati — the very hospital he works in — Dr. Kereiakes had CT and MRI scans and consulted with neurosurgeons he counts as friends. He was given extremely high doses of intravenous steroids. “But instead of getting better, the pain came back, and I started posturing — when you posture, it looks like a praying mantis, your arms are flexed up, your wrists are flexed, and your fingers are spasmed together.” His wife and the nurses couldn’t pull his fingers open, “so they rolled me back, and the posturing started to go away.”
This prompted the neurosurgeons to bring him to the OR “by 6 a.m., and they are ‘unzipping me in the back’ to basically get my spinal cord off my spine. I had cord compression at C2-3 and C 6-7.”
Postop, Dr. Kereiakes couldn’t move his right leg and couldn’t close any of his fingers. “You lose control of things like bladder and bowel function — you have a catheter in — and you say to yourself, ‘How am I going to live like this?.’ ”
The quick-thinking of his neurosurgeons prevented permanent paralysis, and after a long 6-month recovery, Dr. Kereiakes is back in the cath lab, performing procedures. But crucially, he will no longer have to wear a lead apron.
Ending Careers Early. A Catalyst for Change
Typically, interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists, electrophysiologists, and others working in labs where they are exposed to ionizing radiation wear lead aprons and garments, such as thyroid collars, leaded caps, and glasses, to protect them during procedures.
Long-term occupational exposure to radiation is linked to cataracts; brain tumors; cancers, including leukemia, multiple myelomas, lymphomas, and thyroid cancers; and left-sided breast cancers in women because the aprons don’t always cover the left side of the chest adequately.
Individual states set the standards in terms of the thickness of the lead required, varying from 0.25- to 0.5-mm–lead-equivalent aprons, which reduce exposure by 85%-95%. Radiation safety officers monitor the badges that staff wear to record their radiation exposure and will warn them when their levels are too high.
But — as Dr. Kereiakes freely admits — ambitious interventionalists don’t always take much notice. “They would come and say, ‘Hey your badge is really high,’ and so I would just put it in a drawer and carry on,” he said. “When you are younger, you feel immortal.”
James B. Hermiller Jr., MD, president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI), agrees: “The feeling is that, with lead, you are indestructible, and no one wants to show any weakness.”
Another occupational hazard related to those protective lead aprons was also being ignored, that of orthopedic injury. In surveys done by SCAI, around half of interventional cardiology respondents report cervical, lumbar, hip, knee, or ankle joint injuries.
While Dr. Kereiakes recognizes likely bias — with those afflicted more likely to complete these surveys — he believes that the problem is huge and “is ending careers early.”
“It’s interesting that radiation is at the forefront of protection and occupational safety, but you are much more likely to be taken out of work because of orthopedic injury,” explained Dr. Hermiller, director of Structural Heart Program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
His own story “is not as compelling as Dean’s, but 17 years ago, I ruptured a disk in my lower spine and had emergent surgery and I now need a neck surgery.”
Dr. Hermiller’s hospital, too, has purchased multiple radiation protection systems. “If you want to do this job for 30 years, you have to protect yourself early and at all times,” he said.
His focus as SCAI president is to help get these protection systems in place at more hospitals.
But significant challenges remain, not least the cost, which can be $150,000-$200,000 per lab. He estimates that fewer than 10% US hospitals with cath and other labs using radiation have installed such systems.
Most systems are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved because they are not attached to equipment in the cath lab, something that Nadia Sutton, MD, MPH, chair of the SCAI Women in Innovations committee, said many physicians are not aware of. “The companies [marketing the systems] are telling us that we can ‘shed our lead,’ ” she said. “It could be safe, but we are using the data provided by the companies.”
How Do the Lead-Free Systems Work?
Currently, there are three main radiation protection systems available. The Protego Radiation Protection System (Image Diagnostics), the EggNest Protect (Egg Medical), and the Rampart (Rampart ic).
According to Dr. Kereiakes, they differ somewhat in whether they allow immediate access to the patient or whether you can see and interact with them. He explained that in high-risk procedures, easy access is desirable. “If you get a perforation or tamponade and the patient suddenly goes ‘out,’ you need to be able to get to them quickly, and you can’t be spending a lot of time taking the shielding down.”
Dr. Kereiakes was recovering in the hospital when his colleagues plumped for the EggNest system. He thinks they chose it because it offers visibility and access to the patient and “takes 4-5 minutes, maximum, to set up.” So far, he agrees with the choice but wants to “give it a real, volume-driven try.”
If they are satisfied with the system, the hospital will order six more by the end of the year, he said. A significant financial undertaking, he acknowledged.
Dr. Hermiller cited data for the Rampart system showing a 95% reduction in radiation without any lead. For an average 1-GRAY radiation exposure case, “if you wear lead, you reach the maximum dose of radiation around 850 cases in a year. If you do it with one of these protection systems, in this case Rampart, you can do 14,500 cases in a year. Not that anyone would do that [many].”
The Protego system has very similar data, he noted. The systems protect the operator and whoever is scrubbing in at the table, so those on the other side of the protector still need to wear lead, Dr. Hermiller stressed.
Data for the EggNest Protect are available but are as yet unpublished.
Dr. Hermiller acknowledged that there is still a long way to go in getting hospitals to spend the money on these systems, but he thinks cath lab operators will drive the change.
“At our SCAI meeting this year, the biggest attendance was at a session about a lead-free cath lab environment.”
Regulation at the State Level
Despite the excitement among the profession, Dr. Sutton — director of Interventional Cardiology Research in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee — still has concerns about the lack of FDA regulation.
There is one newer system, called the Radiaction shield system, that attaches to the existing equipment so that is regulated by the FDA as a class II device, she noted. “But it is my understanding that the Protego, Rampart, and EggNest are Class I Exempt. That is the same category as Band-Aid.”
James Beabout, MBA, chief marketing officer, Egg Medical, confirmed that the EggNest “is classified as a Class I device which does not require FDA approval. That leaves regulation to each state regarding the requirements for protective aprons.” And Mark Hansen, vice president business development, of Image Diagnostics — the manufacturer of the Protego Radiation Protection System — confirmed that “the real governance is at the state level.”
The company petitions the state regulator for an exemption letter to the wearing of lead aprons. “In some cases, the state will come to the site directly and validate the systems integrity and to confirm their decision. Once the exemption is granted, the state sends a document, and it’s the responsibility of the sites’ Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to change the labs safety process and rules,” Mr. Hansen explained.
“What really makes this work is a real-time dosimetry from Fluke Medical. Staff wear one to two badges that instantly detects exposure,” Mr. Hansen stressed.
Similarly, said Mr. Beabout, Egg Medical has data from over 1000 real-world cases collected using real-time dosimetry (RaySafe i3 system) which demonstrate that it is possible to get some people in the room out of protective aprons, where allowed. They recommend real-time dosimetry anytime people are removing their aprons, “since the patient BMI, x-ray system type/age, and complexity of the case all have a significant effect on the radiation dose in each case.” Their goal is for exposure to be zero or as close to zero as possible, “otherwise we recommend use of protective aprons. With the EggNest, operators can use much lighter aprons (0.125 mm sold by Burlington Medical) than what has traditionally been used, so that is also an option,” he said.
Dr. Hermiller said the SCAI plan is to produce several statements on going lead-free, with all other interested professional societies — such as those representing interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons, as well as all the major cardiology societies.
“We want to make an intellectual foundation for this,” Dr. Hermiller explained. Guidelines “are in the making,” he said, with the expectation that they will be ready by the end of this year or early next year.
SCAI will also work with the 50 US states to facilitate lead-free labs, “as each one has a different way to be approved to go without lead,” he noted.
“This is not going to go away, it’s going to build in force, through the societies,” said Dr. Kereiakes. “It’s a matter of workplace safety.” He doesn’t think that the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration does much to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians in the cath and other labs.
Dr. Hermiller agreed: “I always say that if we were a GM car plant, they would shut us down.”
Dr. Hermiller also stressed the expense of having doctors and other staff off work with occupation-related injuries. He has already observed that “it’s much easier to recruit cath lab staff to a place where they don’t have to wear lead.”
He anticipates that the next generation of physicians “are going to demand places where they don’t have to wear lead.” He is also hopeful that it will result in more women choosing interventional cardiology: “Women are safe in the cath lab with current lead systems, but if we could move to this, there would be even more women participating.”
Pregnancy Safe in the Cath Lab
Dr. Sutton reiterated his point: “The number-one message that I want to get across is that it is considered safe for the unborn baby, being in the cath lab, under lead,” she said, noting that there are very good data that the amount of lead that is required by states results in negligible radiation exposure to the developing fetus.
She had her children before working in the cath lab, “but I’ve heard from other women: It’s heavy and its sweaty for prolonged periods of time, but it can be done and you can get through it,” she said. Although the promise of radiation protection systems “is exciting, we have to approach this with some level of caution or awareness,” she said. “Cardiologists come from a cardiology background. We are not radiologists who go through a radiology residency, like IRs do. They get a lot of training on radiation exposure and what it means,” Dr. Sutton stressed.
Dr. Kereiakes, for his part, remains enthusiastic. He returned to the cath lab in August, just 6 months after his brush with near quadriplegia. “This is what I’ve spent my life doing and I love doing it, and I’m not ready to quit.”
Dr. Hermiller, Dr. Kereiakes, and Dr. Sutton reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“I’d probably be a quadriplegic,” Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, an interventional cardiologist, said when asked what would have happened if two top neurosurgeons at his hospital hadn’t rushed him to the operating room (OR) for a cervical decompression in February this year.
Dr. Kereiakes had orthopedic problems for years due to the heavy lead aprons he wore in the cath lab. He regularly dosed himself with steroids for disc pain so he could stand up straight and continue to do procedures. “Several times a year I’d go on a tapering dose of prednisone of about 10 days to 2 weeks, and this would take care of it.”
But then his luck ran out. “I’m told in retrospect that my gait — the way I walked — was different, and I was also having some myoclonic jerking in my legs when I was going to sleep. I thought it was peculiar, but I didn’t really tie it together that this was an upper tract injury response.”
At a restaurant with his wife, he found himself unable to sign the check. “I couldn’t write my name.” By the next morning, “I had a floppy right foot, and as I turned around to put my scrubs on, everything fell apart. My arms began to not function and my legs — I couldn’t walk.”
Admitted to The Christ Hospital Heart & Vascular Center in Cincinnati — the very hospital he works in — Dr. Kereiakes had CT and MRI scans and consulted with neurosurgeons he counts as friends. He was given extremely high doses of intravenous steroids. “But instead of getting better, the pain came back, and I started posturing — when you posture, it looks like a praying mantis, your arms are flexed up, your wrists are flexed, and your fingers are spasmed together.” His wife and the nurses couldn’t pull his fingers open, “so they rolled me back, and the posturing started to go away.”
This prompted the neurosurgeons to bring him to the OR “by 6 a.m., and they are ‘unzipping me in the back’ to basically get my spinal cord off my spine. I had cord compression at C2-3 and C 6-7.”
Postop, Dr. Kereiakes couldn’t move his right leg and couldn’t close any of his fingers. “You lose control of things like bladder and bowel function — you have a catheter in — and you say to yourself, ‘How am I going to live like this?.’ ”
The quick-thinking of his neurosurgeons prevented permanent paralysis, and after a long 6-month recovery, Dr. Kereiakes is back in the cath lab, performing procedures. But crucially, he will no longer have to wear a lead apron.
Ending Careers Early. A Catalyst for Change
Typically, interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists, electrophysiologists, and others working in labs where they are exposed to ionizing radiation wear lead aprons and garments, such as thyroid collars, leaded caps, and glasses, to protect them during procedures.
Long-term occupational exposure to radiation is linked to cataracts; brain tumors; cancers, including leukemia, multiple myelomas, lymphomas, and thyroid cancers; and left-sided breast cancers in women because the aprons don’t always cover the left side of the chest adequately.
Individual states set the standards in terms of the thickness of the lead required, varying from 0.25- to 0.5-mm–lead-equivalent aprons, which reduce exposure by 85%-95%. Radiation safety officers monitor the badges that staff wear to record their radiation exposure and will warn them when their levels are too high.
But — as Dr. Kereiakes freely admits — ambitious interventionalists don’t always take much notice. “They would come and say, ‘Hey your badge is really high,’ and so I would just put it in a drawer and carry on,” he said. “When you are younger, you feel immortal.”
James B. Hermiller Jr., MD, president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI), agrees: “The feeling is that, with lead, you are indestructible, and no one wants to show any weakness.”
Another occupational hazard related to those protective lead aprons was also being ignored, that of orthopedic injury. In surveys done by SCAI, around half of interventional cardiology respondents report cervical, lumbar, hip, knee, or ankle joint injuries.
While Dr. Kereiakes recognizes likely bias — with those afflicted more likely to complete these surveys — he believes that the problem is huge and “is ending careers early.”
“It’s interesting that radiation is at the forefront of protection and occupational safety, but you are much more likely to be taken out of work because of orthopedic injury,” explained Dr. Hermiller, director of Structural Heart Program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
His own story “is not as compelling as Dean’s, but 17 years ago, I ruptured a disk in my lower spine and had emergent surgery and I now need a neck surgery.”
Dr. Hermiller’s hospital, too, has purchased multiple radiation protection systems. “If you want to do this job for 30 years, you have to protect yourself early and at all times,” he said.
His focus as SCAI president is to help get these protection systems in place at more hospitals.
But significant challenges remain, not least the cost, which can be $150,000-$200,000 per lab. He estimates that fewer than 10% US hospitals with cath and other labs using radiation have installed such systems.
Most systems are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved because they are not attached to equipment in the cath lab, something that Nadia Sutton, MD, MPH, chair of the SCAI Women in Innovations committee, said many physicians are not aware of. “The companies [marketing the systems] are telling us that we can ‘shed our lead,’ ” she said. “It could be safe, but we are using the data provided by the companies.”
How Do the Lead-Free Systems Work?
Currently, there are three main radiation protection systems available. The Protego Radiation Protection System (Image Diagnostics), the EggNest Protect (Egg Medical), and the Rampart (Rampart ic).
According to Dr. Kereiakes, they differ somewhat in whether they allow immediate access to the patient or whether you can see and interact with them. He explained that in high-risk procedures, easy access is desirable. “If you get a perforation or tamponade and the patient suddenly goes ‘out,’ you need to be able to get to them quickly, and you can’t be spending a lot of time taking the shielding down.”
Dr. Kereiakes was recovering in the hospital when his colleagues plumped for the EggNest system. He thinks they chose it because it offers visibility and access to the patient and “takes 4-5 minutes, maximum, to set up.” So far, he agrees with the choice but wants to “give it a real, volume-driven try.”
If they are satisfied with the system, the hospital will order six more by the end of the year, he said. A significant financial undertaking, he acknowledged.
Dr. Hermiller cited data for the Rampart system showing a 95% reduction in radiation without any lead. For an average 1-GRAY radiation exposure case, “if you wear lead, you reach the maximum dose of radiation around 850 cases in a year. If you do it with one of these protection systems, in this case Rampart, you can do 14,500 cases in a year. Not that anyone would do that [many].”
The Protego system has very similar data, he noted. The systems protect the operator and whoever is scrubbing in at the table, so those on the other side of the protector still need to wear lead, Dr. Hermiller stressed.
Data for the EggNest Protect are available but are as yet unpublished.
Dr. Hermiller acknowledged that there is still a long way to go in getting hospitals to spend the money on these systems, but he thinks cath lab operators will drive the change.
“At our SCAI meeting this year, the biggest attendance was at a session about a lead-free cath lab environment.”
Regulation at the State Level
Despite the excitement among the profession, Dr. Sutton — director of Interventional Cardiology Research in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee — still has concerns about the lack of FDA regulation.
There is one newer system, called the Radiaction shield system, that attaches to the existing equipment so that is regulated by the FDA as a class II device, she noted. “But it is my understanding that the Protego, Rampart, and EggNest are Class I Exempt. That is the same category as Band-Aid.”
James Beabout, MBA, chief marketing officer, Egg Medical, confirmed that the EggNest “is classified as a Class I device which does not require FDA approval. That leaves regulation to each state regarding the requirements for protective aprons.” And Mark Hansen, vice president business development, of Image Diagnostics — the manufacturer of the Protego Radiation Protection System — confirmed that “the real governance is at the state level.”
The company petitions the state regulator for an exemption letter to the wearing of lead aprons. “In some cases, the state will come to the site directly and validate the systems integrity and to confirm their decision. Once the exemption is granted, the state sends a document, and it’s the responsibility of the sites’ Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to change the labs safety process and rules,” Mr. Hansen explained.
“What really makes this work is a real-time dosimetry from Fluke Medical. Staff wear one to two badges that instantly detects exposure,” Mr. Hansen stressed.
Similarly, said Mr. Beabout, Egg Medical has data from over 1000 real-world cases collected using real-time dosimetry (RaySafe i3 system) which demonstrate that it is possible to get some people in the room out of protective aprons, where allowed. They recommend real-time dosimetry anytime people are removing their aprons, “since the patient BMI, x-ray system type/age, and complexity of the case all have a significant effect on the radiation dose in each case.” Their goal is for exposure to be zero or as close to zero as possible, “otherwise we recommend use of protective aprons. With the EggNest, operators can use much lighter aprons (0.125 mm sold by Burlington Medical) than what has traditionally been used, so that is also an option,” he said.
Dr. Hermiller said the SCAI plan is to produce several statements on going lead-free, with all other interested professional societies — such as those representing interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons, as well as all the major cardiology societies.
“We want to make an intellectual foundation for this,” Dr. Hermiller explained. Guidelines “are in the making,” he said, with the expectation that they will be ready by the end of this year or early next year.
SCAI will also work with the 50 US states to facilitate lead-free labs, “as each one has a different way to be approved to go without lead,” he noted.
“This is not going to go away, it’s going to build in force, through the societies,” said Dr. Kereiakes. “It’s a matter of workplace safety.” He doesn’t think that the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration does much to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians in the cath and other labs.
Dr. Hermiller agreed: “I always say that if we were a GM car plant, they would shut us down.”
Dr. Hermiller also stressed the expense of having doctors and other staff off work with occupation-related injuries. He has already observed that “it’s much easier to recruit cath lab staff to a place where they don’t have to wear lead.”
He anticipates that the next generation of physicians “are going to demand places where they don’t have to wear lead.” He is also hopeful that it will result in more women choosing interventional cardiology: “Women are safe in the cath lab with current lead systems, but if we could move to this, there would be even more women participating.”
Pregnancy Safe in the Cath Lab
Dr. Sutton reiterated his point: “The number-one message that I want to get across is that it is considered safe for the unborn baby, being in the cath lab, under lead,” she said, noting that there are very good data that the amount of lead that is required by states results in negligible radiation exposure to the developing fetus.
She had her children before working in the cath lab, “but I’ve heard from other women: It’s heavy and its sweaty for prolonged periods of time, but it can be done and you can get through it,” she said. Although the promise of radiation protection systems “is exciting, we have to approach this with some level of caution or awareness,” she said. “Cardiologists come from a cardiology background. We are not radiologists who go through a radiology residency, like IRs do. They get a lot of training on radiation exposure and what it means,” Dr. Sutton stressed.
Dr. Kereiakes, for his part, remains enthusiastic. He returned to the cath lab in August, just 6 months after his brush with near quadriplegia. “This is what I’ve spent my life doing and I love doing it, and I’m not ready to quit.”
Dr. Hermiller, Dr. Kereiakes, and Dr. Sutton reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Parkinson’s Disease Gene Discovered
HELSINKI, FINLAND — , a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.
A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.
“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted.
“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Managing Patient Expectations
Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia.
In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.
In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.
While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland.
The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted.
“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”
Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations.
Clinical Relevance on the Way?
While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.
For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease.
This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”
This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein.
She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.
“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted.
“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised.
“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.
“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset.
Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HELSINKI, FINLAND — , a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.
A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.
“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted.
“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Managing Patient Expectations
Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia.
In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.
In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.
While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland.
The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted.
“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”
Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations.
Clinical Relevance on the Way?
While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.
For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease.
This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”
This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein.
She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.
“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted.
“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised.
“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.
“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset.
Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HELSINKI, FINLAND — , a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.
A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.
“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted.
“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Managing Patient Expectations
Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia.
In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.
In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.
While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland.
The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted.
“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”
Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations.
Clinical Relevance on the Way?
While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.
For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease.
This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”
This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein.
She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.
“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted.
“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised.
“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.
“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset.
Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EAN 2024
Prescribing Epilepsy Meds in Pregnancy: ‘We Can Do Better,’ Experts Say
HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say.
“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.
The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned.
Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said.
In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age.
Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”
To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets.
It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway.
Start With Folic Acid
One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy.
When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.
The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.
Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid.
“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy.
Choosing the Right ASM
The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring.
Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.
“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.
The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added.
This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.
Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.
Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.
On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.
Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.
“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said.
Dose Optimization
Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.
He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.
To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.
The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.
Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say.
“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.
The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned.
Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said.
In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age.
Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”
To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets.
It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway.
Start With Folic Acid
One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy.
When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.
The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.
Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid.
“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy.
Choosing the Right ASM
The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring.
Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.
“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.
The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added.
This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.
Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.
Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.
On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.
Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.
“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said.
Dose Optimization
Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.
He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.
To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.
The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.
Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say.
“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.
The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned.
Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said.
In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age.
Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”
To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets.
It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway.
Start With Folic Acid
One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy.
When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.
The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.
Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid.
“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy.
Choosing the Right ASM
The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring.
Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.
“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.
The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added.
This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.
Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.
Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.
On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.
Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.
“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said.
Dose Optimization
Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.
He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.
To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.
The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.
Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EAN 2024
EPA seeks to limit ‘forever’ chemicals in U.S. drinking water
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.
The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”
“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”
Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”
“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.”
Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years.
“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”
The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28.
The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules.
If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lilly cuts insulin price by 70%, caps out-of-pocket cost
Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.
“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.
The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.
The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.
Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.
Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”
On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”
#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.
Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.
“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.
“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”
And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.
“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”
Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.
“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.
The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.
The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.
Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.
Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”
On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”
#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.
Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.
“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.
“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”
And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.
“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”
Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.
“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.
The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.
The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.
Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.
Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”
On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”
#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.
Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.
“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.
“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”
And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.
“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”
Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves Wegovy (semaglutide) for obesity in teens 12 and up
The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.
This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.
When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”
The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.
In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).
At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.
Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.
Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.
This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.
When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”
The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.
In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).
At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.
Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.
Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.
This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.
When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”
The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.
In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).
At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.
Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.
Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Florida medical boards ban transgender care for minors
Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.
The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.
“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.
During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.
Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.
The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.
The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.
Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.
Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.
The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.
“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.
During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.
Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.
The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.
The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.
Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.
Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.
The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.
“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.
During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.
Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.
The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.
The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.
Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.
Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Few transgender teens discontinue hormones in young adulthood
Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.
The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.
“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.
The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.
Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.
Careful consideration of patient needs
All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.
A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.
“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.
She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.
“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.
“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”
However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.
Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.
“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.
Study limitations
She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.
The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.
Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.
However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.
Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.
The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.
The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.
“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.
The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.
Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.
Careful consideration of patient needs
All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.
A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.
“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.
She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.
“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.
“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”
However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.
Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.
“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.
Study limitations
She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.
The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.
Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.
However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.
Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.
The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.
The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.
“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.
The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.
Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.
Careful consideration of patient needs
All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.
A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.
“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.
She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.
“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.
“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”
However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.
Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.
“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.
Study limitations
She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.
The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.
Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.
However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.
Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.
The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WPATH removes age limits from transgender treatment guidelines
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDER HEALTH
Pediatricians at odds over gender-affirming care for trans kids
Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.
At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.
Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.
Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”
Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.
This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.
That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.
But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.
On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”
The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.
In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.
“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.”
“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.
Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”
So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.
Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.
The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.
Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.
“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.
Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.
At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.
Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.
Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”
Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.
This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.
That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.
But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.
On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”
The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.
In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.
“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.”
“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.
Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”
So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.
Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.
The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.
Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.
“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.
Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.
At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.
Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.
Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”
Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.
This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.
That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.
But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.
On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”
The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.
In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.
“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.”
“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.
Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”
So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.
Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.
The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.
Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.
“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.
Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.