Alicia Ault

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.

“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.

“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”

In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.

The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.

EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.

However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
 

34 million still smoke

The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.

In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”

He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.

Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.

Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.

“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.

Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
 

Barriers to care

Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.

These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.

“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.

Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.

However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”

Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.

“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.

The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.

The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.

“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Learn more about AGA’s position on patient protections and access to care at https://www.gastro.org/advocacy-and-policy/issues-and-news/top-issues/patient-protections-and-access-to-care.  

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Learn more about AGA’s position on patient protections and access to care at https://www.gastro.org/advocacy-and-policy/issues-and-news/top-issues/patient-protections-and-access-to-care.  

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Learn more about AGA’s position on patient protections and access to care at https://www.gastro.org/advocacy-and-policy/issues-and-news/top-issues/patient-protections-and-access-to-care.  

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal appeals court ruled Dec. 18 that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, but the panel sent the case back to a lower court to decide how much of the remainder of the law could topple along with it.

The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

The ruling upholds a December 2018 US District Court decision in which Judge Reed O’Connor found that the individual mandate that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional and that without it the ACA itself was invalid.

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: Whether the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law, while the rest of the law can be left intact.

If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid, and some 24 million Americans could lose health coverage.

“Today’s ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed to succeed in Congress,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “This is a blow to our nation’s health care system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will continue to fight to protect Americans’ access to quality, affordable care.”

Some groups are applauding the decision, though. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), which filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing against the ACA, said it wants more.

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, but it didn’t go far enough,” said Twila Brase, president and cofounder of CCHF, in a statement. “The individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, thus the court should have ruled that the entire law is invalid, as the lower district court found.

“As the Court notes in the first paragraph of the ruling, we argued in our Amicus Brief, filed jointly with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that the Act ‘has deprived patients nationwide of a competitive market for affordable high-deductible health insurance,’ leaving ‘patients with no alternative to ... skyrocketing premiums,’ “ Ms. Brase added. “Sending it back to the lower court, which already ruled the right way, continues to deprive citizens and patients of the affordable coverage that freedom from Obamacare would bring.”
 

Future uncertain

The ruling in Texas v Azar is not a surprise because, during oral arguments in July, as reported by Medscape Medical News, at least two of the three judges – Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Donald J. Trump in 2018 – appeared to be more receptive to the arguments of a group of 18 Republican states and two individuals seeking to invalidate the ACA.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not comment during the hearing.

The Trump administration chose not to defend the ACA, but it does not seem entirely prepared for what might happen if the law is overturned. In a briefing before the Fifth Circuit hearing, the administration argued that, if ultimately the law is ruled unconstitutional, it should be struck down only in the states seeking to overturn the law.

“A lot of this has to get sorted out – it’s complicated,” said August E. Flentje, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, at the oral arguments in July.

For now, though, the ACA remains.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said in a statement.

And those who have led the court battle to keep the ACA intact plan to keep fighting. “For now, the President got the gift he wanted – uncertainty in the health care system and a pathway to repeal – so that the health care that seniors, workers, and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them. This decision could take us to a dangerous and irresponsible place, not just for the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, but for our seniors who use Medicare, our children under the age of 26, and the 20 million additional Americans covered directly through the ACA marketplace. California will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.

The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.

Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.

Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.

“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.

Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.

“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.

But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.

Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.

“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”

An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”

But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”

Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
 

Policy slow to evolve

“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.

Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.

The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.

Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.

But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.

“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.

Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.

“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
 

New safety and efficacy data

One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).

The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.

Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.

At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.

The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.

The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.

Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.

Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.

“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.

Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.

“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.

But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.

Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.

“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”

An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”

But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”

Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
 

Policy slow to evolve

“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.

Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.

The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.

Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.

But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.

“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.

Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.

“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
 

New safety and efficacy data

One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).

The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.

Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.

At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.

The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.

The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.

Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.

Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.

“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.

Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.

“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.

But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.

Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.

“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”

An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”

But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”

Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
 

Policy slow to evolve

“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.

Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.

The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.

Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.

But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.

“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.

Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.

“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
 

New safety and efficacy data

One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).

The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.

Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.

At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.

The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.