MDedge ObGyn

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

Why was PDS considered superior?

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

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

Why that perspective may be changing

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

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

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

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

Why physicians still are questioning

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

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

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why was PDS considered superior?

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

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

Why that perspective may be changing

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

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

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

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

Why physicians still are questioning

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

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

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why was PDS considered superior?

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

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

Why that perspective may be changing

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

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

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

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

Why physicians still are questioning

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

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

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

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

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

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

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

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

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

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

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

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

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

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

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

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

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

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

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

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

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

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

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

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

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

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

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broader access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broader access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broader access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average birth weight lower with metformin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who should be given metformin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average birth weight lower with metformin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who should be given metformin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average birth weight lower with metformin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who should be given metformin?

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A gene expression signature may help physicians diagnose endometriosis by analyzing samples from endometrial biopsies instead of relying on more invasive methods, research suggests.

Yana B. Aznaurova, MD, and colleagues identified and validated a genetic biomarker based on differences in the endometrium of women with and without endometriosis. The biomarker is based on five genes that were down-regulated in patients with the disease.

Endometriosis is an enigmatic gynecologic disease that is associated with chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Aznaurova, of the department of reproductive medicine and surgery at A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State Medical and Dental University. Laparoscopy with histological confirmation is the standard method of diagnosis.

“Development of minimally invasive or even noninvasive diagnostic tests is a research priority in endometriosis,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, held virtually this year.

Attempts to identify biomarkers have tended to focus on single genes or proteins, but “endometriosis is a ... multifactorial disease,” said Dr. Aznaurova. Researchers have found that signaling pathway activation profiles are a more stable and reliable marker of some diseases.

To validate a complex gene expression biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis, the researchers conducted an observational cohort study that included 50 women with endometriosis and 35 controls. The patients with endometriosis were 18-49 years old, had not received hormone therapy in the past year, and did not have other gynecologic diseases. Patients in the control group had uterine scar incompetence after cesarean section, but did not have endometriosis or other gynecologic disease.

Investigators performed RNA sequencing of endometrial samples, including 50 eutopic and 50 ectopic samples from patients with endometriosis, and 35 samples from patients in the control group.

They analyzed gene expression and intracellular pathway activation profiles to identify an endometrial gene expression signature that differentiated samples from patients with and without the disease, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.99.

The researchers further studied the biomarker using preexisting datasets with 120 other tissue samples, including from the cervix, ovarian surface epithelium, stomach, and lung. The biomarker had a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 97% for endometriosis in these analyses.

The results suggest that the genetic biomarker “could be potentially used as a basis for early diagnosis of endometriosis via utilization of endometrial biopsy only,” Dr. Aznaurova said.

Further studies are needed to validate these findings, she noted.

“If we had a noninvasive way to look for endometriosis, this would be very powerful – very important as potentially a diagnostic test, or a triage test, or a monitoring test of treatment,” Patrick P. Yeung Jr., MD, said in a discussion following Dr. Aznaurova’s presentation.

The test might even suggest a target for treatment, said Dr. Yeung, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University.

Dr. Aznaurova and Dr. Yeung had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aznaurova YB et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.040.

A gene expression signature may help physicians diagnose endometriosis by analyzing samples from endometrial biopsies instead of relying on more invasive methods, research suggests.

Yana B. Aznaurova, MD, and colleagues identified and validated a genetic biomarker based on differences in the endometrium of women with and without endometriosis. The biomarker is based on five genes that were down-regulated in patients with the disease.

Endometriosis is an enigmatic gynecologic disease that is associated with chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Aznaurova, of the department of reproductive medicine and surgery at A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State Medical and Dental University. Laparoscopy with histological confirmation is the standard method of diagnosis.

“Development of minimally invasive or even noninvasive diagnostic tests is a research priority in endometriosis,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, held virtually this year.

Attempts to identify biomarkers have tended to focus on single genes or proteins, but “endometriosis is a ... multifactorial disease,” said Dr. Aznaurova. Researchers have found that signaling pathway activation profiles are a more stable and reliable marker of some diseases.

To validate a complex gene expression biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis, the researchers conducted an observational cohort study that included 50 women with endometriosis and 35 controls. The patients with endometriosis were 18-49 years old, had not received hormone therapy in the past year, and did not have other gynecologic diseases. Patients in the control group had uterine scar incompetence after cesarean section, but did not have endometriosis or other gynecologic disease.

Investigators performed RNA sequencing of endometrial samples, including 50 eutopic and 50 ectopic samples from patients with endometriosis, and 35 samples from patients in the control group.

They analyzed gene expression and intracellular pathway activation profiles to identify an endometrial gene expression signature that differentiated samples from patients with and without the disease, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.99.

The researchers further studied the biomarker using preexisting datasets with 120 other tissue samples, including from the cervix, ovarian surface epithelium, stomach, and lung. The biomarker had a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 97% for endometriosis in these analyses.

The results suggest that the genetic biomarker “could be potentially used as a basis for early diagnosis of endometriosis via utilization of endometrial biopsy only,” Dr. Aznaurova said.

Further studies are needed to validate these findings, she noted.

“If we had a noninvasive way to look for endometriosis, this would be very powerful – very important as potentially a diagnostic test, or a triage test, or a monitoring test of treatment,” Patrick P. Yeung Jr., MD, said in a discussion following Dr. Aznaurova’s presentation.

The test might even suggest a target for treatment, said Dr. Yeung, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University.

Dr. Aznaurova and Dr. Yeung had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aznaurova YB et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.040.

A gene expression signature may help physicians diagnose endometriosis by analyzing samples from endometrial biopsies instead of relying on more invasive methods, research suggests.

Yana B. Aznaurova, MD, and colleagues identified and validated a genetic biomarker based on differences in the endometrium of women with and without endometriosis. The biomarker is based on five genes that were down-regulated in patients with the disease.

Endometriosis is an enigmatic gynecologic disease that is associated with chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Aznaurova, of the department of reproductive medicine and surgery at A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State Medical and Dental University. Laparoscopy with histological confirmation is the standard method of diagnosis.

“Development of minimally invasive or even noninvasive diagnostic tests is a research priority in endometriosis,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, held virtually this year.

Attempts to identify biomarkers have tended to focus on single genes or proteins, but “endometriosis is a ... multifactorial disease,” said Dr. Aznaurova. Researchers have found that signaling pathway activation profiles are a more stable and reliable marker of some diseases.

To validate a complex gene expression biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis, the researchers conducted an observational cohort study that included 50 women with endometriosis and 35 controls. The patients with endometriosis were 18-49 years old, had not received hormone therapy in the past year, and did not have other gynecologic diseases. Patients in the control group had uterine scar incompetence after cesarean section, but did not have endometriosis or other gynecologic disease.

Investigators performed RNA sequencing of endometrial samples, including 50 eutopic and 50 ectopic samples from patients with endometriosis, and 35 samples from patients in the control group.

They analyzed gene expression and intracellular pathway activation profiles to identify an endometrial gene expression signature that differentiated samples from patients with and without the disease, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.99.

The researchers further studied the biomarker using preexisting datasets with 120 other tissue samples, including from the cervix, ovarian surface epithelium, stomach, and lung. The biomarker had a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 97% for endometriosis in these analyses.

The results suggest that the genetic biomarker “could be potentially used as a basis for early diagnosis of endometriosis via utilization of endometrial biopsy only,” Dr. Aznaurova said.

Further studies are needed to validate these findings, she noted.

“If we had a noninvasive way to look for endometriosis, this would be very powerful – very important as potentially a diagnostic test, or a triage test, or a monitoring test of treatment,” Patrick P. Yeung Jr., MD, said in a discussion following Dr. Aznaurova’s presentation.

The test might even suggest a target for treatment, said Dr. Yeung, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University.

Dr. Aznaurova and Dr. Yeung had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aznaurova YB et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.040.

[polldaddy:10665862]

[polldaddy:10665862]

[polldaddy:10665862]