User login
FDA tightens requirements for COVID-19 antibody tests
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.
The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.
When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.
“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.
The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.
In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.
“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”
At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.
In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.
To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.
Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.
The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.
When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.
“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.
The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.
In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.
“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”
At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.
In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.
To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.
Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.
The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.
When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.
“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.
The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.
In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.
“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”
At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.
In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.
To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.
Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”
Multiple atopic dermatitis therapies completed or close to completing phase 3 studies
Major , Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.
All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
Oral JAK inhibitors
The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.
“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.
Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.
“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.
Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.
The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.
Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.
Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.
“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.
All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.
“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.
Novel injectable biologics
Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.
Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.
But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).
“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.
It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.
Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.
“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.
Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
Nonsteroidal topical agents
These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.
Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.
Major , Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.
All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
Oral JAK inhibitors
The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.
“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.
Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.
“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.
Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.
The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.
Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.
Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.
“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.
All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.
“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.
Novel injectable biologics
Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.
Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.
But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).
“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.
It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.
Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.
“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.
Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
Nonsteroidal topical agents
These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.
Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.
Major , Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“In the next 2-3 years, we may have nine new treatments approved for atopic dermatitis,” said Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at the University.
All nine medications he discussed are either in ongoing pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials or have completed their phase 3 developmental programs. “This is not theoretical; these are things you’re going to be using in your toolbox imminently,” he stressed.
Oral JAK inhibitors
The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is the intracellular signaling mediator that interacts with extracellular inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-4, -13, and -31, which are familiar to dermatologists because they’re targeted by potent biologic monoclonal antibody therapies. For example, IL-4 goes through JAK1 and 3, while IL-31 signals through JAK1 and 2.
“You really need to know the key JAK and STAT pathways involved in atopic dermatitis because it will help you determine the selectivity of the agents you’re going to be using,” the dermatologist advised.
Three oral, once-daily JAK inhibitors – abrocitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib – are in an advanced stage of development.
“Upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be the two most potent options coming to market soon for us to be thinking about,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Abrocitinib: Three positive phase 3 studies featuring this selective JAK1 inhibitor have been completed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The most recent, JADE COMPARE, featured a head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and the injectable IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor dupilumab. The results of this 837-patient study haven’t yet been formally presented at a conference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Pfizer recently announced that abrocitinib at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab (Dupixent) in the coprimary endpoints of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (that is, clear or almost clear) and disease extent based upon 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at 12 weeks. The same was true at 16 weeks.
Also, a significantly larger proportion of abrocitinib-treated patients achieved at least a 4-point reduction in itch severity as measured using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale at week 2. The company plans to file for regulatory approval later this year.
The JADE COMPARE data are exciting because of a pressing unmet need for treatment options that are even more powerful than dupilumab, Dr. Silverberg said.
Upadacitinib: This is selective JAK1 inhibitor is not as far along in the developmental pipeline as abrocitinib, but the efficacy appears to be comparable. In a phase 2 study of 126 adults with moderate to severe AD, upadacitinib at the top dose of 30 mg/day achieved efficacy results Dr. Silverberg deemed “quite extraordinary,” with a rate of IGA score of 0 or 1 of 50% at 16 weeks and an EASI 75 response rate of 69%. Those findings numerically eclipsed results seen in an earlier phase 3 pivotal trial for dupilumab, in which the IGA 0/1 rate was 37% and EASI 75 was 48%, albeit with the caveat that cross-trial comparisons must be taken with a large grain of salt.
Baricitinib: Multiple phase 3 studies of this JAK 1/2 inhibitor have reported positive results. At the top dose of 4 mg/day, baricitinib appears to be less effective than dupilumab in its earlier pivotal trials.
“This may be a good oral option for our patients. It could be similar to the Otezla [apremilast] story in psoriasis: It’s perhaps not as effective as a lot of the biologics, but patients often prefer an oral option,” Dr. Silverberg said.
Of note, in one large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of baricitinib on top of background low- or medium-potency topical steroids, the IGA 0/1 rate at 16 weeks with placebo plus topical steroids was a modest 14.7%, which underscores that this long-time workhorse topical therapy is objectively less effective than most physicians think. In contrast, the IGA 0/1 rate with baricitinib at 4 mg/day plus topical steroids was a more respectable 30.6%.
All three oral JAK inhibitors have rapid onset of efficacy, a key advantage over the biologic agents.
“The issue you have to keep in mind is safety. The safety in the atopic dermatitis population was overall quite good for all three drugs. However, safety concerns have come up with JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. I think that’s the part we watch the most in this. The efficacy has become clear. Now the question is where does the safety take us,” he said.
Novel injectable biologics
Nemolizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits IL-31 receptor alpha. Mounting evidence implicates IL-31 as both a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine linking the immune and neural systems.
Early on, most researchers pigeonholed IL-31 as being a key player only in the itch factor in AD. Not so. Indeed, Dr. Silverberg was the lead investigator in a recent phase 2b study of nemolizumab that demonstrated the biologic is also effective at rapidly clearing AD lesions. The study, which evaluated three different doses in 226 adults with moderate to severe AD and severe pruritus who were on background topical corticosteroids, showed that nemolizumab at 30 mg every 4 weeks trounced placebo in terms of itch reduction: The 69% drop from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale at week 16 was twice that in controls, with a significant difference apparent even at week 1.
But in addition, the 33% IGA 0/1 rate at the same time point bested the 12% rate in controls. The EASI 75 response rate was significantly higher as well – 49% versus 19% – as was the EASI 90 response of 33%, compared with 9% in controls. Moreover, nemolizumab-treated patients used close to 40% less topical steroids during the study (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan;145[1]:173-82).
“This is something that’s fascinating. The study gets into the idea that a subset of atopic dermatitis patients have the itch that rashes, and perhaps if you break the itch/scratch cycle you can modify the lesions. Or the effect may even be due to the direct anti-inflammatory action of IL-31 blockade,” Dr. Silverberg observed.
It appeared that a plateau hadn’t been reached for some endpoints out at week 24, when the study ended. Japanese phase 3 studies have been completed, with what he called “great results,” and others are ongoing in the United States.
Tralokinumab: This fully human monoclonal antibody binds to IL-13, but unlike dupilumab, it doesn’t also inhibit IL-4. Tralokinumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in three pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, known as ECZTRA 1-3, that assessed it as treatment for moderate to severe AD in adults and showed an overall adverse event rate comparable with placebo. Leo Pharma, the Danish company developing the biologic, has announced it will file for marketing approval before the end of 2020. Phase 3 data would have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Denver, had it not been canceled. Dr. Silverberg said that, based upon phase 2 results, it appears tralokinumab may not be quite as effective as dupilumab in the overall AD population, but he predicted the newcomer will still play a useful role.
“The complexities of the immune system are such that some patients will respond better to one drug than another. I think we still have a lot to learn about who the patients are for these novel assets,” he said.
Lebrikizumab: This is another selective IL-13 inhibitor, but this one binds to IL-13 in a slightly different way than tralokinumab. The Food and Drug Administration granted it Fast Track status in December 2019. Twin placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of lebrikizumab as monotherapy for moderate to severe AD are ongoing, and another phase 3 trial of the biologic in combination with topical steroids is planned. Based upon the results of a phase 2b study, the highest dose studied – 250 mg every 2 weeks – appears to be at least as effective as dupilumab.
Nonsteroidal topical agents
These three late-stage topical creams – ruxolitinib, delgocitinib, and tapinarof – have previously received considerable coverage in Dermatology News. Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has completed a positive phase 3 trial in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate AD. Delgocitinib, a pan-JAK1/2/3 and Tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, is already approved in an ointment formulation in Japan, and the cream formulation is in phase 2 studies in the United States and Europe. Tapinarof has a unique mechanism of action – it’s an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator – and is now in phase 3 in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
These three drugs appear to offer efficacy that’s comparable to or even better than medium-potency topical steroids, and without the notorious steroidal side effects that have caused widespread parental steroid-phobia. Potential applications for other inflammatory diseases, including vitiligo and psoriasis, are under study.
Dr. Silverberg reported receiving research grants from Galderma and GlaxoSmithKline and serving as a consultant to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.
Adding mechanical to pharma prophylaxis does not cut DVT incidence
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
FOURIER: Evolocumab follow-up shows no cognitive adverse effects
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
FROM JACC
Key clinical point: A cognition survey of a large number of trial participants showed no signal of adverse effects from evolocumab treatment.
Major finding: Survey results showed cognitive compromise in 3.7% of patients on evolocumab and in 3.6% control patients on placebo.
Study details:
Disclosures: FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Guigliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies.
Source: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Hydroxychloroquine-triggered QTc-interval prolongations mount in COVID-19 patients
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
COVID-19: Social distancing with young children
Emma just celebrated her second birthday, and she has been working on the usual things that children start to master at this age: potty training, making friends, exerting her will through both actions and words, and generally enjoying life as the center of attention for both her parents and grandparents. Like everyone else in Maryland, Emma’s life changed suddenly with the coronavirus stay-at-home order that was issued on March 30. There is no more day care and her parents work from home while caring for her. Her grandparents visit, but only outside and only from a distance – there are no more hugs and there is no more sitting in her grandfather’s lap while he reads stories.
One afternoon a few weeks ago, Emma was looking out the window when she saw her friend, Max, walk by with his parents. Before her parents could stop her, Emma bolted out the door, and she and little Max wrapped each other in a tight embrace. Their parents snapped a photo of the smiling toddlers hugging before they separated the children. The photo is adorable, but as all struggle with social distancing, the poignance of two innocent toddlers in a forbidden embrace is a bit heartbreaking.
Everyone who has ever observed children knows that social distancing is not in their nature. Children play, they hug, they wrestle and tackle and poke, and sometimes even bite. And every student of social psychology has been taught about Harry Harlow’s experiments with rhesus macaques who were separated from their mothers and given access to an inanimate object to serve as a surrogate mother. The Harlow studies, while controversial, were revolutionary in demonstrating that early interactions with both a mother and with playmates were essential in the development of normal social relationships.
Regine Galanti, PhD, is a clinical psychologist at Long Island Behavioral Psychology, Cedarhurst, N.Y., who specializes in the treatment of anxiety and behavior problems. With young children she uses parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) to help build relationships and discipline. Dr. Galanti said: “I don’t think we’re well prepared as a field to answer questions about the long-term effects of social distancing. If you need young children to socially distance, the responsibility has to fall on the adults. It’s important to explain to children what’s going on and to be honest in a developmentally appropriate way.”
Dr. Galanti has noticed that the issues that people had before COVID-19 are exacerbated by the stress of the current situation. What we do know is that young children thrive on structure.”
Tovah P. Klein, PhD, is the author of “How Toddlers Thrive” (Touchstone, 2015) and is the director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development in Manhattan. “When this started, we thought we would be closed for a few weeks,” Dr. Klein said. “We wanted to maintain a connection to the children, so we made videos for the parents to show to the kids, just to say ‘We’re still here.’ But as time went on and we realized it was going to be a while, we felt it was important to provide connection, so we launched a virtual program.”
Dr. Klein said that the teachers meet with their classes of 13 2-year-olds over Zoom, and when they first started, she asked the teachers to try to meet for 10 minutes. They are now meeting for 40 minutes twice a week. The children like seeing their teachers in their homes and they like seeing each other. In addition, the teachers make videos to send home and they are currently working on one to demystify masks. “We’re working on normalizing masks and showing children that when you put the mask on, you’re still there underneath.”
The center has existed for 48 years. There have been struggles for some of the children who attend; some of the parents have been hospitalized with the virus, and some work on the front line and so parents may be living away from a child.
“We’ve seen more challenging behaviors during this time, more tantrums, toileting issues, night awakenings, and more fragility. But as the new normal takes hold, things are settling in. Parents have been good about getting new routines and it helps if parents can handle their own stress,” Dr. Klein said. She also pointed out that for parents working at home while caring for their children, this can be particularly difficult on a young child. “The child knows the parent is home, but isn’t spending time with him, and he sees it as a rejection.”
Margaret Adams, MD, is a child psychiatrist in Maryland who works with very young children and their parents. She says that some of the children are thriving with the extra attention from their parents. “I often have seen difficulties with readjustment to the routine of separations to day care after a family vacation of a week, or sometimes even a weekend, even for those young ones who seem to love the social aspects of day care. I think it is likely a big impact will come upon return, depending on the developmental stage of the child,” Dr. Adams noted.
Despite the hardships of the moment, all three experts expressed hopefulness about the future for these children.
“Young children are super-resilient and that’s the blessing of this,” Dr. Galanti said. “I think they will be okay.”
Emma is home for now with her parents, who are expecting another child soon. Her mother notes: “The days are long and balancing work is an impossible challenge, but being with Emma has been a total blessing, and when would I ever have this much time to spend with my kid? She’s at such a fun age – so curious and adventurous – it’s amazing to watch her language and skills progress. I wish we weren’t in the midst of a pandemic, but Emma is definitely the bright spot.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
Emma just celebrated her second birthday, and she has been working on the usual things that children start to master at this age: potty training, making friends, exerting her will through both actions and words, and generally enjoying life as the center of attention for both her parents and grandparents. Like everyone else in Maryland, Emma’s life changed suddenly with the coronavirus stay-at-home order that was issued on March 30. There is no more day care and her parents work from home while caring for her. Her grandparents visit, but only outside and only from a distance – there are no more hugs and there is no more sitting in her grandfather’s lap while he reads stories.
One afternoon a few weeks ago, Emma was looking out the window when she saw her friend, Max, walk by with his parents. Before her parents could stop her, Emma bolted out the door, and she and little Max wrapped each other in a tight embrace. Their parents snapped a photo of the smiling toddlers hugging before they separated the children. The photo is adorable, but as all struggle with social distancing, the poignance of two innocent toddlers in a forbidden embrace is a bit heartbreaking.
Everyone who has ever observed children knows that social distancing is not in their nature. Children play, they hug, they wrestle and tackle and poke, and sometimes even bite. And every student of social psychology has been taught about Harry Harlow’s experiments with rhesus macaques who were separated from their mothers and given access to an inanimate object to serve as a surrogate mother. The Harlow studies, while controversial, were revolutionary in demonstrating that early interactions with both a mother and with playmates were essential in the development of normal social relationships.
Regine Galanti, PhD, is a clinical psychologist at Long Island Behavioral Psychology, Cedarhurst, N.Y., who specializes in the treatment of anxiety and behavior problems. With young children she uses parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) to help build relationships and discipline. Dr. Galanti said: “I don’t think we’re well prepared as a field to answer questions about the long-term effects of social distancing. If you need young children to socially distance, the responsibility has to fall on the adults. It’s important to explain to children what’s going on and to be honest in a developmentally appropriate way.”
Dr. Galanti has noticed that the issues that people had before COVID-19 are exacerbated by the stress of the current situation. What we do know is that young children thrive on structure.”
Tovah P. Klein, PhD, is the author of “How Toddlers Thrive” (Touchstone, 2015) and is the director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development in Manhattan. “When this started, we thought we would be closed for a few weeks,” Dr. Klein said. “We wanted to maintain a connection to the children, so we made videos for the parents to show to the kids, just to say ‘We’re still here.’ But as time went on and we realized it was going to be a while, we felt it was important to provide connection, so we launched a virtual program.”
Dr. Klein said that the teachers meet with their classes of 13 2-year-olds over Zoom, and when they first started, she asked the teachers to try to meet for 10 minutes. They are now meeting for 40 minutes twice a week. The children like seeing their teachers in their homes and they like seeing each other. In addition, the teachers make videos to send home and they are currently working on one to demystify masks. “We’re working on normalizing masks and showing children that when you put the mask on, you’re still there underneath.”
The center has existed for 48 years. There have been struggles for some of the children who attend; some of the parents have been hospitalized with the virus, and some work on the front line and so parents may be living away from a child.
“We’ve seen more challenging behaviors during this time, more tantrums, toileting issues, night awakenings, and more fragility. But as the new normal takes hold, things are settling in. Parents have been good about getting new routines and it helps if parents can handle their own stress,” Dr. Klein said. She also pointed out that for parents working at home while caring for their children, this can be particularly difficult on a young child. “The child knows the parent is home, but isn’t spending time with him, and he sees it as a rejection.”
Margaret Adams, MD, is a child psychiatrist in Maryland who works with very young children and their parents. She says that some of the children are thriving with the extra attention from their parents. “I often have seen difficulties with readjustment to the routine of separations to day care after a family vacation of a week, or sometimes even a weekend, even for those young ones who seem to love the social aspects of day care. I think it is likely a big impact will come upon return, depending on the developmental stage of the child,” Dr. Adams noted.
Despite the hardships of the moment, all three experts expressed hopefulness about the future for these children.
“Young children are super-resilient and that’s the blessing of this,” Dr. Galanti said. “I think they will be okay.”
Emma is home for now with her parents, who are expecting another child soon. Her mother notes: “The days are long and balancing work is an impossible challenge, but being with Emma has been a total blessing, and when would I ever have this much time to spend with my kid? She’s at such a fun age – so curious and adventurous – it’s amazing to watch her language and skills progress. I wish we weren’t in the midst of a pandemic, but Emma is definitely the bright spot.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
Emma just celebrated her second birthday, and she has been working on the usual things that children start to master at this age: potty training, making friends, exerting her will through both actions and words, and generally enjoying life as the center of attention for both her parents and grandparents. Like everyone else in Maryland, Emma’s life changed suddenly with the coronavirus stay-at-home order that was issued on March 30. There is no more day care and her parents work from home while caring for her. Her grandparents visit, but only outside and only from a distance – there are no more hugs and there is no more sitting in her grandfather’s lap while he reads stories.
One afternoon a few weeks ago, Emma was looking out the window when she saw her friend, Max, walk by with his parents. Before her parents could stop her, Emma bolted out the door, and she and little Max wrapped each other in a tight embrace. Their parents snapped a photo of the smiling toddlers hugging before they separated the children. The photo is adorable, but as all struggle with social distancing, the poignance of two innocent toddlers in a forbidden embrace is a bit heartbreaking.
Everyone who has ever observed children knows that social distancing is not in their nature. Children play, they hug, they wrestle and tackle and poke, and sometimes even bite. And every student of social psychology has been taught about Harry Harlow’s experiments with rhesus macaques who were separated from their mothers and given access to an inanimate object to serve as a surrogate mother. The Harlow studies, while controversial, were revolutionary in demonstrating that early interactions with both a mother and with playmates were essential in the development of normal social relationships.
Regine Galanti, PhD, is a clinical psychologist at Long Island Behavioral Psychology, Cedarhurst, N.Y., who specializes in the treatment of anxiety and behavior problems. With young children she uses parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) to help build relationships and discipline. Dr. Galanti said: “I don’t think we’re well prepared as a field to answer questions about the long-term effects of social distancing. If you need young children to socially distance, the responsibility has to fall on the adults. It’s important to explain to children what’s going on and to be honest in a developmentally appropriate way.”
Dr. Galanti has noticed that the issues that people had before COVID-19 are exacerbated by the stress of the current situation. What we do know is that young children thrive on structure.”
Tovah P. Klein, PhD, is the author of “How Toddlers Thrive” (Touchstone, 2015) and is the director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development in Manhattan. “When this started, we thought we would be closed for a few weeks,” Dr. Klein said. “We wanted to maintain a connection to the children, so we made videos for the parents to show to the kids, just to say ‘We’re still here.’ But as time went on and we realized it was going to be a while, we felt it was important to provide connection, so we launched a virtual program.”
Dr. Klein said that the teachers meet with their classes of 13 2-year-olds over Zoom, and when they first started, she asked the teachers to try to meet for 10 minutes. They are now meeting for 40 minutes twice a week. The children like seeing their teachers in their homes and they like seeing each other. In addition, the teachers make videos to send home and they are currently working on one to demystify masks. “We’re working on normalizing masks and showing children that when you put the mask on, you’re still there underneath.”
The center has existed for 48 years. There have been struggles for some of the children who attend; some of the parents have been hospitalized with the virus, and some work on the front line and so parents may be living away from a child.
“We’ve seen more challenging behaviors during this time, more tantrums, toileting issues, night awakenings, and more fragility. But as the new normal takes hold, things are settling in. Parents have been good about getting new routines and it helps if parents can handle their own stress,” Dr. Klein said. She also pointed out that for parents working at home while caring for their children, this can be particularly difficult on a young child. “The child knows the parent is home, but isn’t spending time with him, and he sees it as a rejection.”
Margaret Adams, MD, is a child psychiatrist in Maryland who works with very young children and their parents. She says that some of the children are thriving with the extra attention from their parents. “I often have seen difficulties with readjustment to the routine of separations to day care after a family vacation of a week, or sometimes even a weekend, even for those young ones who seem to love the social aspects of day care. I think it is likely a big impact will come upon return, depending on the developmental stage of the child,” Dr. Adams noted.
Despite the hardships of the moment, all three experts expressed hopefulness about the future for these children.
“Young children are super-resilient and that’s the blessing of this,” Dr. Galanti said. “I think they will be okay.”
Emma is home for now with her parents, who are expecting another child soon. Her mother notes: “The days are long and balancing work is an impossible challenge, but being with Emma has been a total blessing, and when would I ever have this much time to spend with my kid? She’s at such a fun age – so curious and adventurous – it’s amazing to watch her language and skills progress. I wish we weren’t in the midst of a pandemic, but Emma is definitely the bright spot.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
Shoulder arthroplasty template data require careful interpretation
Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.
“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.
The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.
In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.
After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).
Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.
“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”
There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.
“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.
There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.
“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.
“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”
Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.
“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.
There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.
“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”
Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.
Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.
“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.
The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.
In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.
After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).
Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.
“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”
There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.
“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.
There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.
“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.
“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”
Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.
“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.
There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.
“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”
Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.
Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.
“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.
The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.
In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.
After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).
Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.
“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”
There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.
“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.
There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.
“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.
“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”
Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.
“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.
There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.
“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”
Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.
FROM AAOS 2020
COVID-19: To have and to hold ... in quarantine
Tips for marriage survival during a pandemic
Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.
Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.
There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.
Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.
To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.
Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives
Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.
Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.
Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.
The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.
When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions
Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.
To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.
Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.
Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship
Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.
Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.
This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
Provide validation and acceptance to your partner
Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.
Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.
Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.
Remember that you are a team
Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.
Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.
Tips for marriage survival during a pandemic
Tips for marriage survival during a pandemic
Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.
Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.
There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.
Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.
To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.
Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives
Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.
Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.
Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.
The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.
When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions
Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.
To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.
Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.
Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship
Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.
Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.
This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
Provide validation and acceptance to your partner
Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.
Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.
Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.
Remember that you are a team
Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.
Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.
Most married couples vowed to stay with their partners during sickness and health, but none of us vowed to remain trapped with our loved ones behind the same four walls, all day, every day, for an unknown period of time. We didn’t sign up for this! Some romantics may be titillated by the prospect, while more independent partners may panic at the mere thought of spending all day and night with their loved ones.
Because of the swift implementation of the lifestyle-altering restrictions, couples did not have ample time to mentally and physically prepare. A lack of preparation and loss of control heightens our emotions. It can make couples more susceptible to engage in unhealthy styles of communication and destructive behaviors that are harmful to their relationships.
There are psychological reasons that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Distance from your partner is not just a clever way to make your partner appreciate and desire you more. It is human nature to habituate to what is part of your daily life. For instance, when your partner is away from you while on a work trip, you may find the first night or two alone relaxing; but by day 3, you begin to miss your partner’s hugs and kisses, smell, and touch. And after many days apart, you may even miss the incessant nagging that secretly motivates you. Physical distance from our partners essentially gives us the ability to long for and appreciate each other. Our brains are wired to pay more attention to things that are novel and exciting and less interested in what is in our everyday lives.
Separation gives us the ability to miss our partners, while quarantine does the complete opposite.
To avoid contemplating how to murder one’s spouse before quarantine ends, partners can strengthen their relationships by using the strategies I’ve outlined below, which are loosely based on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These strategies can be useful for anyone – providers and patients alike – going through these struggles.
Dialectical behavior therapy was developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan PhD, to help regulate emotions for people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. These skills help to identify thoughts and feelings, to accept one’s inner emotional world and outward behaviors. The idea is that, once you can recognize and accept, then change is possible. The “dialectic” in dialectical behavior therapy implies that one is attempting to find a balance between acceptance and change. All of us can benefit from these skills, especially emotionally volatile couples who are trapped together in quarantine.
Radically accept what is uncertain in your lives
Radical acceptance is a practice used in DBT in situations that are out of our control, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Radically accept that you and your partner are trapped in quarantine without attempting to place blame on our government, your spouse, your boss, and even yourself. Radical acceptance is exactly what the name implies. Accept your current situation for what it is and not what you hoped it to be.
Accept the unknown and unanswered questions such as when will this quarantine end? Will there be a summer camp? Will I get back to my office this summer? Will my children even return to school in the fall? The acceptance of what is out of your control will ultimately decrease your mental time spent worrying and obsessing about the uncertainties of your post-quarantine life and instead provide you more time to be present with your spouse.
Remain mindful during all communication with your spouse. To stay in the moment, you need to be aware of your bodily reactions to distress and notice when your heart rate increases, breathing becomes more shallow, stomach muscles tighten, and when your thoughts become more negative. Mindfulness skills enable us to use physiological changes in our body to become aware of our emotions. You can use your partner’s nonverbal body language and tone of voice to gauge that person’s emotional reactivity.
The practice of mindfulness leads to an increased emotional intelligence. The goal is to have enough self-awareness and emotional understanding of your partner and enough empathy to know when a conversation is becoming too emotionally charged and to let it go and back off. Mindfulness is not nagging your partner to remember to change the heating unit filters with a reminder of what happened years ago when this wasn’t done promptly – without first checking in to make sure your partner is emotionally ready for this type of conversation.
When we have strong emotions, we are using the more primitive parts of our brain that induce a fight or flight reaction. These emotional reactions overshadow the more advanced prefrontal region of our brain that stores our rational thoughts and reasoning skills, a concept identified by psychologist Daniel Goleman as “emotional hijacking.”
Use distress tolerance skills to deal with negative emotions
Distress tolerance is an individual’s ability to manage feelings in response to stress. Distress tolerance skills are aimed at helping one manage intense emotions without worsening a situation by engaging in behaviors that are destructive and may exacerbate the problem. The goal is to tolerate the stress while with your partner and not respond negatively or in a way that is harmful to the integrity of your relationship.
To prioritize your relationship, this may mean that you choose not to react negatively when your partner makes a passive-aggressive comment on how you spent your day during quarantine since you still have a pile of laundry on your bedroom floor and overflowing dishes in the kitchen sink. A high level of distress tolerance will enable you to not overreact or withdraw from your spouse when flooded with emotions of anger or sadness.
Distraction techniques are a type of distress tolerance skill. You can engage in activities that keep you distracted and require your full attention. When things get heated between you and your spouse during quarantine, try to obtain some distance from each other to cool down and engage in an activity that involves your full concentration.
Many of us have been surprised by our hidden talents that were discovered during the quarantine. Use the time away from your partner to distract yourself with your new passion for writing, baking, organizing, and even your newfound love of balloon artistry. Do an activity that engages your mind and provides you the necessary physical and mental time away from your partner to deescalate. You can always revisit the initial cause of the conflict when both you and your partner are not emotionally charged. You can also distract yourself with self-soothing tactics such as taking a warm bath or a reading good book. Perhaps distract yourself by giving back to others and spending time planning a drive-by surprise party for your sister’s birthday next month. It can be helpful to distract yourself by comparing yourself to others less fortunate than you or a time in your life when you and your partner were struggling much worse than now, to provide perspective. The goal is not to add to your distress but instead, provide yourself a sense of perspective.
Use interpersonal effectiveness skills to establish a healthy relationship
Be gentle in all your communications with your partner, think about your spouse’s perspective, show empathy and interest in what your partner has to say by your verbal communication or body language, such as maintaining eye contact, and offer recognitional cues, such as “uh-huh” and “oh, really.” Avoid communication that is at all invalidating. Never start a sentence with “YOU” while having heated conversations with your spouse; instead, use “I feel” statements. This type of communication avoids the blame game that gets many couples into trouble.
Instead, communicate how you feel while not necessarily blaming your spouse but rather expressing your emotions. This will ultimately lead to less defensive communication from your partner. Remember that not all communication is for the sole purpose of communicating. Much of the time, communication is used as an attempt for one partner to connect with the other partner. Couples may say that they have difficulty with communication when it is not the communication that is the issue but instead the underlying disconnect of the couple.
This disconnect usually manifests while couples are communicating, and therefore, can be misconstrued as solely a communication issue by the couple. When your partner asks you to stop staring at your phone during dinner, it is not necessarily that your spouse is attempting to control you or wants to engage in some deep conversation, but more likely a bid to try to connect with you. Your partner is attempting to tell you that he or she feels disconnected, misses you, and wants to reconnect.
Provide validation and acceptance to your partner
Focus on your partner’s strengths and accept the weaknesses. Accept that your partner is scattered, disorganized, and takes at least 20 minutes to find the phone and keys every morning. Remember that during your courtship days, you found your partner’s flighty attributes to be endearing. Do the same for your strengths and weaknesses.
Accept that the pandemic is unpredictable and that you may need to strengthen your ability to be flexible and more adaptable. This will ultimately lead to feeling less disappointment by your partner and more accepting of shortcomings. Acceptance of your imperfections will improve your sense of worth and confidence and lessen negative emotions, such as guilt, regret, and shame.
Accept the fact that, as similar as we all are, we use different methods to recharge ourselves. In contrast, your spouse needs alone time without distractions to reboot mentally and prepare for the following day. In the pre-pandemic world, if there were a mismatch in what a couple needed to feel rejuvenated, they could independently compensate and search for fulfillment outside of the home. Before stay-at-home orders were rolled out throughout the country, spouses had ample opportunities to spend time away from their partners at work, dinner with friends, or while squeezing in a 7 p.m. yoga sculpt class – barely getting home in time to kiss our children goodnight – with a few minutes to spare to engage in mundane conversation with our partners before our nighttime routine of TV commenced. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made it very hard for couples to carve out that time for compensatory activities outside of the home.
Remember that you are a team
Remind yourself of the reason why you initially fell in love with your partner. Teammates do not keep score or compete with one another. They support each other when one player is not feeling well, and they make sacrifices for the betterment of the team.
Your marriage vows included “through sickness and health” and now should include “through quarantine.”
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.
High rate of fatty liver disease found among 9/11 first responders
First responders to the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attack may have an elevated risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to investigators.
In a retrospective look at 236 first responders presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms to the World Trade Center Health Program, 195 (82.6%) had NAFLD, compared with 24%-45% of the general population, reported lead author Mishal Reja, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.
The increased rate of NAFLD among first responders is likely because of toxin exposure at ground zero, which can cause a subtype of NAFLD known as toxin-associated fatty liver disease (TAFLD), Dr. Reja wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.
“I was not surprised [by these findings],” Dr. Reja said during a virtual press conference. “In the prior literature that did examine TAFLD, it did show that populations exposed to these specific chemicals ... at the ground zero site had extremely high rates – consistent with the rates we found in our study – of fatty liver disease.”
Dr. Reja said that 9/11 first responders were exposed to “many common toxins that are consistently in occupational and environmental toxicant literature.” In particular, he named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and vinyl chloride.
“A lot of these toxins are ... included in industrial solvents as well as building demolition,” Dr. Reja said. “So they’ve been around for so long, and they’ve been studied for so long, [that we have] literature that shows these toxins are associated with fatty liver disease, which is how we arrived at the hypothesis in the first place.”
The first responders were stratified by roles, which were associated with varying levels of exposure. About 40% of individuals in the study were involved in moving debris from the site, a small group (4%) were involved in clean-up and maintenance, while approximately 30%-40% worked in more protected, administrative roles.
Comparing individuals in the study with TAFLD versus those without TAFLD revealed additional risk factors. Multivariate logistical regression analysis showed that obese individuals had a significantly increased risk of fatty liver disease, suggesting a synergistic effect.
“If you were exposed to these toxins in the World Trade Center, and you were obese, [then] you are actually between two to three times more likely to get [TAFLD],” Dr. Reja said, noting that hypertension and diabetes were also identified as independent risk factors.
Dr. Reja and colleagues are planning a prospective trial to investigate further. The study will likely involve 100-200 first responders with TAFLD, a similar number of individuals with NAFLD, and another group without liver disease.
The investigators reported no outside funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reja M et al. DDW 2020, Abstracts available online May 2.
First responders to the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attack may have an elevated risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to investigators.
In a retrospective look at 236 first responders presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms to the World Trade Center Health Program, 195 (82.6%) had NAFLD, compared with 24%-45% of the general population, reported lead author Mishal Reja, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.
The increased rate of NAFLD among first responders is likely because of toxin exposure at ground zero, which can cause a subtype of NAFLD known as toxin-associated fatty liver disease (TAFLD), Dr. Reja wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.
“I was not surprised [by these findings],” Dr. Reja said during a virtual press conference. “In the prior literature that did examine TAFLD, it did show that populations exposed to these specific chemicals ... at the ground zero site had extremely high rates – consistent with the rates we found in our study – of fatty liver disease.”
Dr. Reja said that 9/11 first responders were exposed to “many common toxins that are consistently in occupational and environmental toxicant literature.” In particular, he named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and vinyl chloride.
“A lot of these toxins are ... included in industrial solvents as well as building demolition,” Dr. Reja said. “So they’ve been around for so long, and they’ve been studied for so long, [that we have] literature that shows these toxins are associated with fatty liver disease, which is how we arrived at the hypothesis in the first place.”
The first responders were stratified by roles, which were associated with varying levels of exposure. About 40% of individuals in the study were involved in moving debris from the site, a small group (4%) were involved in clean-up and maintenance, while approximately 30%-40% worked in more protected, administrative roles.
Comparing individuals in the study with TAFLD versus those without TAFLD revealed additional risk factors. Multivariate logistical regression analysis showed that obese individuals had a significantly increased risk of fatty liver disease, suggesting a synergistic effect.
“If you were exposed to these toxins in the World Trade Center, and you were obese, [then] you are actually between two to three times more likely to get [TAFLD],” Dr. Reja said, noting that hypertension and diabetes were also identified as independent risk factors.
Dr. Reja and colleagues are planning a prospective trial to investigate further. The study will likely involve 100-200 first responders with TAFLD, a similar number of individuals with NAFLD, and another group without liver disease.
The investigators reported no outside funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reja M et al. DDW 2020, Abstracts available online May 2.
First responders to the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attack may have an elevated risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to investigators.
In a retrospective look at 236 first responders presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms to the World Trade Center Health Program, 195 (82.6%) had NAFLD, compared with 24%-45% of the general population, reported lead author Mishal Reja, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.
The increased rate of NAFLD among first responders is likely because of toxin exposure at ground zero, which can cause a subtype of NAFLD known as toxin-associated fatty liver disease (TAFLD), Dr. Reja wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.
“I was not surprised [by these findings],” Dr. Reja said during a virtual press conference. “In the prior literature that did examine TAFLD, it did show that populations exposed to these specific chemicals ... at the ground zero site had extremely high rates – consistent with the rates we found in our study – of fatty liver disease.”
Dr. Reja said that 9/11 first responders were exposed to “many common toxins that are consistently in occupational and environmental toxicant literature.” In particular, he named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and vinyl chloride.
“A lot of these toxins are ... included in industrial solvents as well as building demolition,” Dr. Reja said. “So they’ve been around for so long, and they’ve been studied for so long, [that we have] literature that shows these toxins are associated with fatty liver disease, which is how we arrived at the hypothesis in the first place.”
The first responders were stratified by roles, which were associated with varying levels of exposure. About 40% of individuals in the study were involved in moving debris from the site, a small group (4%) were involved in clean-up and maintenance, while approximately 30%-40% worked in more protected, administrative roles.
Comparing individuals in the study with TAFLD versus those without TAFLD revealed additional risk factors. Multivariate logistical regression analysis showed that obese individuals had a significantly increased risk of fatty liver disease, suggesting a synergistic effect.
“If you were exposed to these toxins in the World Trade Center, and you were obese, [then] you are actually between two to three times more likely to get [TAFLD],” Dr. Reja said, noting that hypertension and diabetes were also identified as independent risk factors.
Dr. Reja and colleagues are planning a prospective trial to investigate further. The study will likely involve 100-200 first responders with TAFLD, a similar number of individuals with NAFLD, and another group without liver disease.
The investigators reported no outside funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reja M et al. DDW 2020, Abstracts available online May 2.
FROM DDW 2020
Key clinical point: First responders to the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attack may have a higher risk of fatty liver disease.
Major finding: Eighty-three percent of first responders presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms had toxin-associated fatty liver disease (TAFLD), a subtype of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Study details: A retrospective study involving 236 first responders presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms to the World Trade Center Health Program between January 2014 and August 2019.
Disclosures: The investigators reported no outside funding or conflicts of interest.
Source: Reja M et al. DDW 2020, Abstracts available online May 2.
Advances in Hematology and Oncology (May 2020)
Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology
Table of Contents
- Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
- Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
- Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
- Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
- Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration
Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology
Table of Contents
- Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
- Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
- Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
- Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
- Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration
Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology
Table of Contents
- Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
- Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
- Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
- Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
- Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration
