User login
Less gestational weight gain seen with metformin
GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.
The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.
Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.
“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m2], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.
This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.
What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”
“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.
Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.
Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”
Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.
The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.
“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”
Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.
“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.
In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.
In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.
Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.
*This story was updated 2/10/2020.
GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.
The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.
Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.
“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m2], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.
This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.
What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”
“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.
Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.
Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”
Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.
The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.
“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”
Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.
“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.
In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.
In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.
Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.
*This story was updated 2/10/2020.
GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.
The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.
Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.
“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m2], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.
This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.
What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”
“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.
Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.
Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”
Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.
The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.
“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”
Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.
“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.
In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.
In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.
Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.
*This story was updated 2/10/2020.
REPORTING FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Choice of infant sleep location is multifactorial
according to a recent nationally representative study.
Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.
Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.
How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.
Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).
The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”
The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.
The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.
Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.
“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.
Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.
according to a recent nationally representative study.
Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.
Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.
How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.
Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).
The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”
The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.
The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.
Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.
“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.
Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.
according to a recent nationally representative study.
Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.
Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.
How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.
Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).
The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”
The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.
The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.
Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.
“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.
Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Delaying flu vaccine didn’t drop fever rate for childhood immunizations
according to a randomized trial.
An increased risk for febrile seizures had been seen when the three vaccines were administered together, wrote Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, and coauthors, so they constructed a trial that compared a simultaneous administration strategy that delayed inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration by about 2 weeks.
In all, 221 children aged 12-16 months were enrolled in the randomized study. A total of 110 children received quadrivalent IIV (IIV4), DTaP, and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) simultaneously and returned for a dental health education visit 2 weeks later. For 111 children, DTaP and PCV13 were administered at study visit 1, and IIV4 was given along with dental health education 2 weeks later. Most children in both groups also received at least one nonstudy vaccine at the first study visit. Eleven children in the simultaneous group and four in the sequential group didn’t complete the study.
There was no difference between study groups in the combined rates of fever on the first 2 days after study visits 1 and 2 taken together: 8% of children in the simultaneous group and 9% of those in the sequential group had fever of 38° C or higher (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-2.10).
However, children in the simultaneous group were more likely to receive antipyretic medication in the first 2 days after visit 1 (37% versus 22%; P = .020), reported Dr. Walter, professor of pediatrics at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors. Because it’s rare for febrile seizures to occur after immunization, the authors didn’t make the occurrence of febrile seizure a primary or secondary endpoint of the study; no seizures occurred in study participants. They did hypothesize that the total proportion of children having fever would be higher in the simultaneous than in the sequential group – a hypothesis not supported by the study findings.
Children were excluded, or their study vaccinations were delayed, if they had received antipyretic medication within the 72 hours preceding the visit or at the study visit, or if they had a temperature of 38° C or more.
Parents monitored participants’ temperatures for 8 days after visits by using a study-provided temporal thermometer once daily at about the same time, and also by checking the temperature if their child felt feverish. Parents also recorded any antipyretic use, medical care, other symptoms, and febrile seizures.
The study was stopped earlier than anticipated because unexpectedly high levels of influenza activity made it unethical to delay influenza immunization, explained Dr. Walter and coauthors.
Participants were a median 15 months old; most were non-Hispanic white and had private insurance. Most participants didn’t attend day care.
“Nearly all fever episodes and days of fever on days 1-2 after the study visits occurred after visit 1,” reported Dr. Walter and coinvestigators. They saw no difference between groups in the proportion of children who had a fever of 38.6° C on days 1-2 after either study visit.
The mean peak temperature – about 38.5° C – on combined study visits 1 and 2 didn’t differ between groups. Similarly, for those participants who had a fever, the mean postvisit fever duration of 1.3 days was identical between groups.
Parents also were asked about their perceptions of the vaccination schedule their children received. Over half of parents overall (56%) reported that they disliked having to bring their child in for two separate clinic visits, with more parents in the sequential group than the simultaneous group reporting this (65% versus 48%).
Generalizability of the findings and comparison with previous studies are limited, noted Dr. Walter and coinvestigators, because the composition of influenza vaccine varies from year to year. No signal for seizures was seen in the Vaccine Safety Datalink after IIV during the 2017-2018 influenza season, wrote the investigators. The 2010-2011 influenza season’s IIV formulation was associated with increased febrile seizure risk, indicating that the IIV formulation for that year may have been more pyrogenic than the 2017-2018 formulation.
Also, children deemed at higher risk of febrile seizure were excluded from the study, so findings may have limited applicability to these children. The lack of parental blinding also may have influenced antipyretic administration or other symptom reporting, although objective temperature measurement should not have been affected by the lack of blinding, wrote Dr. Walker and collaborators.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor reported potential conflicts of interest from financial support received from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, Protein Science, Dynavax, and Medimmune. The remaining authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Walter EB et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(3):e20191909.
according to a randomized trial.
An increased risk for febrile seizures had been seen when the three vaccines were administered together, wrote Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, and coauthors, so they constructed a trial that compared a simultaneous administration strategy that delayed inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration by about 2 weeks.
In all, 221 children aged 12-16 months were enrolled in the randomized study. A total of 110 children received quadrivalent IIV (IIV4), DTaP, and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) simultaneously and returned for a dental health education visit 2 weeks later. For 111 children, DTaP and PCV13 were administered at study visit 1, and IIV4 was given along with dental health education 2 weeks later. Most children in both groups also received at least one nonstudy vaccine at the first study visit. Eleven children in the simultaneous group and four in the sequential group didn’t complete the study.
There was no difference between study groups in the combined rates of fever on the first 2 days after study visits 1 and 2 taken together: 8% of children in the simultaneous group and 9% of those in the sequential group had fever of 38° C or higher (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-2.10).
However, children in the simultaneous group were more likely to receive antipyretic medication in the first 2 days after visit 1 (37% versus 22%; P = .020), reported Dr. Walter, professor of pediatrics at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors. Because it’s rare for febrile seizures to occur after immunization, the authors didn’t make the occurrence of febrile seizure a primary or secondary endpoint of the study; no seizures occurred in study participants. They did hypothesize that the total proportion of children having fever would be higher in the simultaneous than in the sequential group – a hypothesis not supported by the study findings.
Children were excluded, or their study vaccinations were delayed, if they had received antipyretic medication within the 72 hours preceding the visit or at the study visit, or if they had a temperature of 38° C or more.
Parents monitored participants’ temperatures for 8 days after visits by using a study-provided temporal thermometer once daily at about the same time, and also by checking the temperature if their child felt feverish. Parents also recorded any antipyretic use, medical care, other symptoms, and febrile seizures.
The study was stopped earlier than anticipated because unexpectedly high levels of influenza activity made it unethical to delay influenza immunization, explained Dr. Walter and coauthors.
Participants were a median 15 months old; most were non-Hispanic white and had private insurance. Most participants didn’t attend day care.
“Nearly all fever episodes and days of fever on days 1-2 after the study visits occurred after visit 1,” reported Dr. Walter and coinvestigators. They saw no difference between groups in the proportion of children who had a fever of 38.6° C on days 1-2 after either study visit.
The mean peak temperature – about 38.5° C – on combined study visits 1 and 2 didn’t differ between groups. Similarly, for those participants who had a fever, the mean postvisit fever duration of 1.3 days was identical between groups.
Parents also were asked about their perceptions of the vaccination schedule their children received. Over half of parents overall (56%) reported that they disliked having to bring their child in for two separate clinic visits, with more parents in the sequential group than the simultaneous group reporting this (65% versus 48%).
Generalizability of the findings and comparison with previous studies are limited, noted Dr. Walter and coinvestigators, because the composition of influenza vaccine varies from year to year. No signal for seizures was seen in the Vaccine Safety Datalink after IIV during the 2017-2018 influenza season, wrote the investigators. The 2010-2011 influenza season’s IIV formulation was associated with increased febrile seizure risk, indicating that the IIV formulation for that year may have been more pyrogenic than the 2017-2018 formulation.
Also, children deemed at higher risk of febrile seizure were excluded from the study, so findings may have limited applicability to these children. The lack of parental blinding also may have influenced antipyretic administration or other symptom reporting, although objective temperature measurement should not have been affected by the lack of blinding, wrote Dr. Walker and collaborators.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor reported potential conflicts of interest from financial support received from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, Protein Science, Dynavax, and Medimmune. The remaining authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Walter EB et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(3):e20191909.
according to a randomized trial.
An increased risk for febrile seizures had been seen when the three vaccines were administered together, wrote Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, and coauthors, so they constructed a trial that compared a simultaneous administration strategy that delayed inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration by about 2 weeks.
In all, 221 children aged 12-16 months were enrolled in the randomized study. A total of 110 children received quadrivalent IIV (IIV4), DTaP, and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) simultaneously and returned for a dental health education visit 2 weeks later. For 111 children, DTaP and PCV13 were administered at study visit 1, and IIV4 was given along with dental health education 2 weeks later. Most children in both groups also received at least one nonstudy vaccine at the first study visit. Eleven children in the simultaneous group and four in the sequential group didn’t complete the study.
There was no difference between study groups in the combined rates of fever on the first 2 days after study visits 1 and 2 taken together: 8% of children in the simultaneous group and 9% of those in the sequential group had fever of 38° C or higher (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-2.10).
However, children in the simultaneous group were more likely to receive antipyretic medication in the first 2 days after visit 1 (37% versus 22%; P = .020), reported Dr. Walter, professor of pediatrics at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors. Because it’s rare for febrile seizures to occur after immunization, the authors didn’t make the occurrence of febrile seizure a primary or secondary endpoint of the study; no seizures occurred in study participants. They did hypothesize that the total proportion of children having fever would be higher in the simultaneous than in the sequential group – a hypothesis not supported by the study findings.
Children were excluded, or their study vaccinations were delayed, if they had received antipyretic medication within the 72 hours preceding the visit or at the study visit, or if they had a temperature of 38° C or more.
Parents monitored participants’ temperatures for 8 days after visits by using a study-provided temporal thermometer once daily at about the same time, and also by checking the temperature if their child felt feverish. Parents also recorded any antipyretic use, medical care, other symptoms, and febrile seizures.
The study was stopped earlier than anticipated because unexpectedly high levels of influenza activity made it unethical to delay influenza immunization, explained Dr. Walter and coauthors.
Participants were a median 15 months old; most were non-Hispanic white and had private insurance. Most participants didn’t attend day care.
“Nearly all fever episodes and days of fever on days 1-2 after the study visits occurred after visit 1,” reported Dr. Walter and coinvestigators. They saw no difference between groups in the proportion of children who had a fever of 38.6° C on days 1-2 after either study visit.
The mean peak temperature – about 38.5° C – on combined study visits 1 and 2 didn’t differ between groups. Similarly, for those participants who had a fever, the mean postvisit fever duration of 1.3 days was identical between groups.
Parents also were asked about their perceptions of the vaccination schedule their children received. Over half of parents overall (56%) reported that they disliked having to bring their child in for two separate clinic visits, with more parents in the sequential group than the simultaneous group reporting this (65% versus 48%).
Generalizability of the findings and comparison with previous studies are limited, noted Dr. Walter and coinvestigators, because the composition of influenza vaccine varies from year to year. No signal for seizures was seen in the Vaccine Safety Datalink after IIV during the 2017-2018 influenza season, wrote the investigators. The 2010-2011 influenza season’s IIV formulation was associated with increased febrile seizure risk, indicating that the IIV formulation for that year may have been more pyrogenic than the 2017-2018 formulation.
Also, children deemed at higher risk of febrile seizure were excluded from the study, so findings may have limited applicability to these children. The lack of parental blinding also may have influenced antipyretic administration or other symptom reporting, although objective temperature measurement should not have been affected by the lack of blinding, wrote Dr. Walker and collaborators.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor reported potential conflicts of interest from financial support received from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, Protein Science, Dynavax, and Medimmune. The remaining authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Walter EB et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(3):e20191909.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Fevers were no less common when influenza vaccine was delayed for children receiving DTaP and pneumococcal vaccinations.
Major finding: There was no difference between study groups in the combined rates of fever on the first 2 days after study visits 1 and 2 taken together: 8% of children in the simultaneous group and 9% of those in the sequential group had fever of 38° C or higher (adjusted relative risk, 0.87).
Study details: Randomized, nonblinded trial of 221 children aged 12-16 months receiving scheduled vaccinations.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor reported financial support received from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, Protein Science, Dynavax, and Medimmune.
Source: Walter EB et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(3):e20191909.
Novel coronavirus cases now at 11; entry ban and quarantine measures begin
, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.
Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.
“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”
As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.
During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”
She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.
A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.
However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.
As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:
- San Francisco International Airport in California.
- Los Angeles International Airport in California.
- Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
- Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
- O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
- Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
- Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
- John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
- Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
- Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
- Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.
Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.
Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.
American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.
Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.
The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.
“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.
“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.
The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.
Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”
, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.
Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.
“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”
As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.
During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”
She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.
A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.
However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.
As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:
- San Francisco International Airport in California.
- Los Angeles International Airport in California.
- Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
- Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
- O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
- Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
- Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
- John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
- Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
- Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
- Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.
Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.
Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.
American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.
Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.
The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.
“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.
“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.
The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.
Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”
, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.
Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.
“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”
As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.
During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”
She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.
A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.
However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.
As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:
- San Francisco International Airport in California.
- Los Angeles International Airport in California.
- Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
- Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
- O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
- Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
- Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
- John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
- Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
- Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
- Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.
Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.
Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.
American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.
Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.
The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.
“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.
“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.
The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.
Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”
FROM A CDC PRESS BRIEFING
Modafinil use in pregnancy tied to congenital malformations
Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.
Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.
Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.
Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.
Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.
Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.
After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.
A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.
The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.
The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.
Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.
Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.
Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.
Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.
Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.
Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.
After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.
A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.
The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.
The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.
Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.
Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.
Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.
Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.
Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.
Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.
After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.
A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.
The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.
The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.
FROM JAMA
Rural treatment of opioid use disorder increasingly driven by nonphysician workforce
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.
In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.
From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.
In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
SAMHSA data identifies trends
In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”
Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.
“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.
Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”
The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
Scope-of-practice regulations matter
The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.
This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”
Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”
Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
Effect on quality of care
The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”
In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”
Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”
Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.
Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”
Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”
Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.
In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.
From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.
In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
SAMHSA data identifies trends
In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”
Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.
“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.
Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”
The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
Scope-of-practice regulations matter
The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.
This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”
Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”
Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
Effect on quality of care
The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”
In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”
Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”
Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.
Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”
Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”
Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.
In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.
From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.
In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
SAMHSA data identifies trends
In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”
Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.
“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.
Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”
The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
Scope-of-practice regulations matter
The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.
This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”
Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”
Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
Effect on quality of care
The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”
In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”
Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”
Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.
Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”
Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”
Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.
FROM HEALTH AFFAIRS
In rheumatology, biosimilars are flatlining. Why?
Although biosimilar versions of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have been available to U.S. rheumatologists and their patients for over 3 years, uptake has thus far been slow.
In an analysis of data from a large commercial payer, the two available biosimilars for infliximab (Remicade) accounted for less than 1% of TNFi prescribing since the first biosimilar to infliximab was approved in 2016.
The study, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, involved a total of 1.1 million TNFi prescriptions or infusions received by 95,906 patients from 2016 to 2019. Investigators found that uptake of biosimilar infliximab was essentially flat, standing at 0.1% of prescribing in the second quarter of 2017, and topping out at 0.9% in the first quarter of 2019. For branded infliximab, prescribing was also stable, but accounted for about 20% of overall biologic dispensing in each quarter of the period studied.
There are currently two biosimilar medications to the originator infliximab, which is one of five originator biologics available to treat rheumatic diseases in the United States: infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). The former was approved in 2016 and the latter in 2017, said study author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coauthors.
“Our paper reports a disappointingly low uptake of biosimilar infliximab since the first quarter of 2017 using claims data from a large private health plan. The main and maybe the only reason to consider using a biosimilar is cost saving,” said Dr. Kim in an interview. “Our results suggest that current modest cost savings from infliximab biosimilars in the U.S. are not sufficient to promote their widespread use.”
In the payer database study conducted by Dr. Kim and colleagues, the insurer paid similar mean amounts per patient per quarter for originator and biosimilar infliximab in mid-2017 ($8,322 versus $8,656). By the end of 2018, a gap appeared, with the insurer paying a mean quarterly per-patient sum of $8,111 for biosimilar infliximab compared with $9,535 for the branded biologic.
“The lack of market penetration and very modest price reductions for biosimilars have left policymakers, payers, physicians, and the public frustrated, particularly because sales in Europe continue to rapidly expand and robust cost-savings have materialized,” wrote Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, in an editorial accompanying the study.
Dr. Yazdany, professor and chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that increased spending on biologics in the United States – which increased by 50% from 2014 to 2018 – has been driven by rising prices as well as increased uptake of biologic therapies.
At least in part, Europe has been able to reap cost savings where the United States hasn’t because fundamental differences in health care reimbursement can ease sweeping biosimilar adoption, Dr. Yazdany noted. “Countries like Denmark and Sweden, using the negotiating and purchasing power of their single-payer systems have instituted a winner-takes-all bidding system,” with Denmark seeing cost savings of up to two-thirds when bidding was combined with mandatory switching, she said.
The continued market dominance of originator infliximab means that savings from biosimilars have thus far amounted to about $91 million, far short of the $1 billion that the Congressional Budget Office had projected for this date, Dr. Yazdany said.
One problem in the adoption of biosimilars by U.S. rheumatologists may have been uneven marketing and pricing across different types of practice, Colin C. Edgerton, MD, a rheumatologist at Low Country Rheumatology in South Carolina and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care, said in an interview.
“Rheumatologists have generally developed comfort with biosimilars, although this is not universal. The core message, that all biologics vary and that this is OK, is getting out. In general, rheumatologists also understand the problem with high drug prices and the threat to patient access,” Dr. Edgerton said. But “the early marketing and pricing focus for biosimilars seemed to be on hospitals and facilities, and this did not work effectively for community rheumatologists, where the majority of care is delivered. We have been pleased to see a manufacturer pivot toward community rheumatology where additional efforts need to be made to bend the curve on biosimilar adoption. It is critical for practices with experience using biosimilars to educate peers, and this is where networks of practicing rheumatologists are important.”
In Dr. Yazdany’s editorial, she cited four structural factors impeding biosimilar uptake and downstream savings.
First, she cites ongoing actions by pharmaceutical companies, which create a “patent thicket” that has the effect of fencing off originator biologics from biosimilars long beyond the original 12-year exclusivity period. Supporting the notion that “patent thickets” are a common strategy, Dr. Yazdany noted that almost half of the patent applications that AbbVie has filed for adalimumab (Humira) have come in after the original exclusivity period expired in 2014. Humira’s price has risen 18% yearly during this period.
The complicated role played by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) is another factor in slow adoption, said Dr. Yazdany: When manufacturers offer rebates to PBMs, the price of the originator biologic may be less than its biosimilar. Further, manufacturers may sign multiyear rebate agreements just before a biosimilar launch; PBMs are also sometimes threatened with the withdrawal of rebates if they offer biosimilars, she noted.
Third, prescriber inertia may also be at play, Dr. Yazdany noted, not least because patients often see little difference in out-of-pocket costs when they make the switch to a biosimilar – PBM rebates are not necessarily passed on to patients. Payers may not reimburse a biosimilar, or formularies can be built without them, influencing prescribing, and there’s usually no reimbursement incentive for biosimilar prescribing in the nonpublic sector, she said. To the contrary, infusing a drug with a higher price often means higher reimbursement for the administering clinician, since commercial insurance reimbursement is often calculated as a percent of the charge for the drug.
Further contributing to inertia is the extra time required for patient education and writing a new set of orders – all work that can’t be captured for extra reimbursement. Dr. Edgerton said that rheumatologists can talk with patients about the “nocebo effect” relating to biosimilars. “This is a phenomenon in which patients are thought to experience worsening symptoms associated with negative beliefs about biosimilars. There has been a study in Arthritis Care & Research addressing this concern. The authors found that positive framing of biosimilars led to more participants being willing to switch than negative framing. This suggests that clinicians have an important role in informing patients about biosimilars, and addressing hesitancy.”
Finally, Dr. Yazdany pointed out that for a pharmaceutical company pursuing biosimilar approval, the regulatory pathway itself can provide its own set of complications and confusion. Biosimilars are not exact molecular replicas of the originator biologic, and these differences can change efficacy and immunogenicity, and also affect stability. Hence, a company wishing to market a biosimilar has to show the Food and Drug Administration that safety and efficacy aren’t affected by a switch to biosimilar from an originator biologic. Extrapolation from one indication to another can be made – with scientific justification.
Rheumatologists are mindful of the potential differences between biosimilars and the originator biologic, as evinced in a recent position statement from the American College of Rheumatology. The position statement advises that “extrapolation should be pursued with caution,” and asks for clear labeling when biosimilars have been designated “interchangeable” with their biosimilar. Interchangeability can clear the way for pharmacy substitution of a prescribed biologic, though Dr. Yazdany noted that 40 states have passed legislation requiring prescriber notification.
The FDA is currently using postmarketing pharmacovigilance to monitor biosimilar performance in the real world, and a recent systematic review “should provide some reassurance,” wrote Dr. Yazdany, citing the study, which looked at 14,000 patients who had a total of 14 disease indications for biosimilar use. The 90-article review largely found no differences in safety, efficacy, or immunogenicity between originators and their biosimilars. Dr. Yazdany recommended greater openness to incorporating the European experience in the FDA’s ongoing reassessment.
A further way forward can come through tackling the patent thicket with the proposed bipartisan Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which would require publication of biologic patents in a one-stop publicly searchable database. Going further with legislation to address anticompetitive activity by pharmaceutical companies could shorten the runway to biosimilar launching considerably, she noted.
The complicated landscape of PBMs and rebates affects many sectors of health care, and new policy efforts are needed here as well, she said. Reimbursement strategies – and much-needed continuing medical education – can both ease prescriber unfamiliarity with biosimilars and provide incentives for their use, she concluded.
Dr. Kim concurred that change is needed before the United States is likely to reap significant economic benefit from biosimilars. “The uptake of biosimilars and their impact on overall health care cost needs to be reevaluated when we have more biosimilars available in the next 3-4 years. However, for now, it appears that substantial savings achieved in some European countries – for example, Denmark – may not be possible without systemic reform of the U.S. pharmaceutical market,” she said.
Dr. Yazdany is supported by the Alice Betts Endowed Chair in Arthritis Research, the Russel/Engleman Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco, and the National Institutes of Health. She has received independent research grants from Pfizer and Genentech and research consulting fees from Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca.
Dr. Kim’s study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kim has received research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche.
SOURCES: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41201; Yazdany J. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41203.
Although biosimilar versions of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have been available to U.S. rheumatologists and their patients for over 3 years, uptake has thus far been slow.
In an analysis of data from a large commercial payer, the two available biosimilars for infliximab (Remicade) accounted for less than 1% of TNFi prescribing since the first biosimilar to infliximab was approved in 2016.
The study, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, involved a total of 1.1 million TNFi prescriptions or infusions received by 95,906 patients from 2016 to 2019. Investigators found that uptake of biosimilar infliximab was essentially flat, standing at 0.1% of prescribing in the second quarter of 2017, and topping out at 0.9% in the first quarter of 2019. For branded infliximab, prescribing was also stable, but accounted for about 20% of overall biologic dispensing in each quarter of the period studied.
There are currently two biosimilar medications to the originator infliximab, which is one of five originator biologics available to treat rheumatic diseases in the United States: infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). The former was approved in 2016 and the latter in 2017, said study author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coauthors.
“Our paper reports a disappointingly low uptake of biosimilar infliximab since the first quarter of 2017 using claims data from a large private health plan. The main and maybe the only reason to consider using a biosimilar is cost saving,” said Dr. Kim in an interview. “Our results suggest that current modest cost savings from infliximab biosimilars in the U.S. are not sufficient to promote their widespread use.”
In the payer database study conducted by Dr. Kim and colleagues, the insurer paid similar mean amounts per patient per quarter for originator and biosimilar infliximab in mid-2017 ($8,322 versus $8,656). By the end of 2018, a gap appeared, with the insurer paying a mean quarterly per-patient sum of $8,111 for biosimilar infliximab compared with $9,535 for the branded biologic.
“The lack of market penetration and very modest price reductions for biosimilars have left policymakers, payers, physicians, and the public frustrated, particularly because sales in Europe continue to rapidly expand and robust cost-savings have materialized,” wrote Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, in an editorial accompanying the study.
Dr. Yazdany, professor and chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that increased spending on biologics in the United States – which increased by 50% from 2014 to 2018 – has been driven by rising prices as well as increased uptake of biologic therapies.
At least in part, Europe has been able to reap cost savings where the United States hasn’t because fundamental differences in health care reimbursement can ease sweeping biosimilar adoption, Dr. Yazdany noted. “Countries like Denmark and Sweden, using the negotiating and purchasing power of their single-payer systems have instituted a winner-takes-all bidding system,” with Denmark seeing cost savings of up to two-thirds when bidding was combined with mandatory switching, she said.
The continued market dominance of originator infliximab means that savings from biosimilars have thus far amounted to about $91 million, far short of the $1 billion that the Congressional Budget Office had projected for this date, Dr. Yazdany said.
One problem in the adoption of biosimilars by U.S. rheumatologists may have been uneven marketing and pricing across different types of practice, Colin C. Edgerton, MD, a rheumatologist at Low Country Rheumatology in South Carolina and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care, said in an interview.
“Rheumatologists have generally developed comfort with biosimilars, although this is not universal. The core message, that all biologics vary and that this is OK, is getting out. In general, rheumatologists also understand the problem with high drug prices and the threat to patient access,” Dr. Edgerton said. But “the early marketing and pricing focus for biosimilars seemed to be on hospitals and facilities, and this did not work effectively for community rheumatologists, where the majority of care is delivered. We have been pleased to see a manufacturer pivot toward community rheumatology where additional efforts need to be made to bend the curve on biosimilar adoption. It is critical for practices with experience using biosimilars to educate peers, and this is where networks of practicing rheumatologists are important.”
In Dr. Yazdany’s editorial, she cited four structural factors impeding biosimilar uptake and downstream savings.
First, she cites ongoing actions by pharmaceutical companies, which create a “patent thicket” that has the effect of fencing off originator biologics from biosimilars long beyond the original 12-year exclusivity period. Supporting the notion that “patent thickets” are a common strategy, Dr. Yazdany noted that almost half of the patent applications that AbbVie has filed for adalimumab (Humira) have come in after the original exclusivity period expired in 2014. Humira’s price has risen 18% yearly during this period.
The complicated role played by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) is another factor in slow adoption, said Dr. Yazdany: When manufacturers offer rebates to PBMs, the price of the originator biologic may be less than its biosimilar. Further, manufacturers may sign multiyear rebate agreements just before a biosimilar launch; PBMs are also sometimes threatened with the withdrawal of rebates if they offer biosimilars, she noted.
Third, prescriber inertia may also be at play, Dr. Yazdany noted, not least because patients often see little difference in out-of-pocket costs when they make the switch to a biosimilar – PBM rebates are not necessarily passed on to patients. Payers may not reimburse a biosimilar, or formularies can be built without them, influencing prescribing, and there’s usually no reimbursement incentive for biosimilar prescribing in the nonpublic sector, she said. To the contrary, infusing a drug with a higher price often means higher reimbursement for the administering clinician, since commercial insurance reimbursement is often calculated as a percent of the charge for the drug.
Further contributing to inertia is the extra time required for patient education and writing a new set of orders – all work that can’t be captured for extra reimbursement. Dr. Edgerton said that rheumatologists can talk with patients about the “nocebo effect” relating to biosimilars. “This is a phenomenon in which patients are thought to experience worsening symptoms associated with negative beliefs about biosimilars. There has been a study in Arthritis Care & Research addressing this concern. The authors found that positive framing of biosimilars led to more participants being willing to switch than negative framing. This suggests that clinicians have an important role in informing patients about biosimilars, and addressing hesitancy.”
Finally, Dr. Yazdany pointed out that for a pharmaceutical company pursuing biosimilar approval, the regulatory pathway itself can provide its own set of complications and confusion. Biosimilars are not exact molecular replicas of the originator biologic, and these differences can change efficacy and immunogenicity, and also affect stability. Hence, a company wishing to market a biosimilar has to show the Food and Drug Administration that safety and efficacy aren’t affected by a switch to biosimilar from an originator biologic. Extrapolation from one indication to another can be made – with scientific justification.
Rheumatologists are mindful of the potential differences between biosimilars and the originator biologic, as evinced in a recent position statement from the American College of Rheumatology. The position statement advises that “extrapolation should be pursued with caution,” and asks for clear labeling when biosimilars have been designated “interchangeable” with their biosimilar. Interchangeability can clear the way for pharmacy substitution of a prescribed biologic, though Dr. Yazdany noted that 40 states have passed legislation requiring prescriber notification.
The FDA is currently using postmarketing pharmacovigilance to monitor biosimilar performance in the real world, and a recent systematic review “should provide some reassurance,” wrote Dr. Yazdany, citing the study, which looked at 14,000 patients who had a total of 14 disease indications for biosimilar use. The 90-article review largely found no differences in safety, efficacy, or immunogenicity between originators and their biosimilars. Dr. Yazdany recommended greater openness to incorporating the European experience in the FDA’s ongoing reassessment.
A further way forward can come through tackling the patent thicket with the proposed bipartisan Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which would require publication of biologic patents in a one-stop publicly searchable database. Going further with legislation to address anticompetitive activity by pharmaceutical companies could shorten the runway to biosimilar launching considerably, she noted.
The complicated landscape of PBMs and rebates affects many sectors of health care, and new policy efforts are needed here as well, she said. Reimbursement strategies – and much-needed continuing medical education – can both ease prescriber unfamiliarity with biosimilars and provide incentives for their use, she concluded.
Dr. Kim concurred that change is needed before the United States is likely to reap significant economic benefit from biosimilars. “The uptake of biosimilars and their impact on overall health care cost needs to be reevaluated when we have more biosimilars available in the next 3-4 years. However, for now, it appears that substantial savings achieved in some European countries – for example, Denmark – may not be possible without systemic reform of the U.S. pharmaceutical market,” she said.
Dr. Yazdany is supported by the Alice Betts Endowed Chair in Arthritis Research, the Russel/Engleman Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco, and the National Institutes of Health. She has received independent research grants from Pfizer and Genentech and research consulting fees from Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca.
Dr. Kim’s study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kim has received research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche.
SOURCES: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41201; Yazdany J. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41203.
Although biosimilar versions of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have been available to U.S. rheumatologists and their patients for over 3 years, uptake has thus far been slow.
In an analysis of data from a large commercial payer, the two available biosimilars for infliximab (Remicade) accounted for less than 1% of TNFi prescribing since the first biosimilar to infliximab was approved in 2016.
The study, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, involved a total of 1.1 million TNFi prescriptions or infusions received by 95,906 patients from 2016 to 2019. Investigators found that uptake of biosimilar infliximab was essentially flat, standing at 0.1% of prescribing in the second quarter of 2017, and topping out at 0.9% in the first quarter of 2019. For branded infliximab, prescribing was also stable, but accounted for about 20% of overall biologic dispensing in each quarter of the period studied.
There are currently two biosimilar medications to the originator infliximab, which is one of five originator biologics available to treat rheumatic diseases in the United States: infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). The former was approved in 2016 and the latter in 2017, said study author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coauthors.
“Our paper reports a disappointingly low uptake of biosimilar infliximab since the first quarter of 2017 using claims data from a large private health plan. The main and maybe the only reason to consider using a biosimilar is cost saving,” said Dr. Kim in an interview. “Our results suggest that current modest cost savings from infliximab biosimilars in the U.S. are not sufficient to promote their widespread use.”
In the payer database study conducted by Dr. Kim and colleagues, the insurer paid similar mean amounts per patient per quarter for originator and biosimilar infliximab in mid-2017 ($8,322 versus $8,656). By the end of 2018, a gap appeared, with the insurer paying a mean quarterly per-patient sum of $8,111 for biosimilar infliximab compared with $9,535 for the branded biologic.
“The lack of market penetration and very modest price reductions for biosimilars have left policymakers, payers, physicians, and the public frustrated, particularly because sales in Europe continue to rapidly expand and robust cost-savings have materialized,” wrote Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, in an editorial accompanying the study.
Dr. Yazdany, professor and chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that increased spending on biologics in the United States – which increased by 50% from 2014 to 2018 – has been driven by rising prices as well as increased uptake of biologic therapies.
At least in part, Europe has been able to reap cost savings where the United States hasn’t because fundamental differences in health care reimbursement can ease sweeping biosimilar adoption, Dr. Yazdany noted. “Countries like Denmark and Sweden, using the negotiating and purchasing power of their single-payer systems have instituted a winner-takes-all bidding system,” with Denmark seeing cost savings of up to two-thirds when bidding was combined with mandatory switching, she said.
The continued market dominance of originator infliximab means that savings from biosimilars have thus far amounted to about $91 million, far short of the $1 billion that the Congressional Budget Office had projected for this date, Dr. Yazdany said.
One problem in the adoption of biosimilars by U.S. rheumatologists may have been uneven marketing and pricing across different types of practice, Colin C. Edgerton, MD, a rheumatologist at Low Country Rheumatology in South Carolina and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care, said in an interview.
“Rheumatologists have generally developed comfort with biosimilars, although this is not universal. The core message, that all biologics vary and that this is OK, is getting out. In general, rheumatologists also understand the problem with high drug prices and the threat to patient access,” Dr. Edgerton said. But “the early marketing and pricing focus for biosimilars seemed to be on hospitals and facilities, and this did not work effectively for community rheumatologists, where the majority of care is delivered. We have been pleased to see a manufacturer pivot toward community rheumatology where additional efforts need to be made to bend the curve on biosimilar adoption. It is critical for practices with experience using biosimilars to educate peers, and this is where networks of practicing rheumatologists are important.”
In Dr. Yazdany’s editorial, she cited four structural factors impeding biosimilar uptake and downstream savings.
First, she cites ongoing actions by pharmaceutical companies, which create a “patent thicket” that has the effect of fencing off originator biologics from biosimilars long beyond the original 12-year exclusivity period. Supporting the notion that “patent thickets” are a common strategy, Dr. Yazdany noted that almost half of the patent applications that AbbVie has filed for adalimumab (Humira) have come in after the original exclusivity period expired in 2014. Humira’s price has risen 18% yearly during this period.
The complicated role played by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) is another factor in slow adoption, said Dr. Yazdany: When manufacturers offer rebates to PBMs, the price of the originator biologic may be less than its biosimilar. Further, manufacturers may sign multiyear rebate agreements just before a biosimilar launch; PBMs are also sometimes threatened with the withdrawal of rebates if they offer biosimilars, she noted.
Third, prescriber inertia may also be at play, Dr. Yazdany noted, not least because patients often see little difference in out-of-pocket costs when they make the switch to a biosimilar – PBM rebates are not necessarily passed on to patients. Payers may not reimburse a biosimilar, or formularies can be built without them, influencing prescribing, and there’s usually no reimbursement incentive for biosimilar prescribing in the nonpublic sector, she said. To the contrary, infusing a drug with a higher price often means higher reimbursement for the administering clinician, since commercial insurance reimbursement is often calculated as a percent of the charge for the drug.
Further contributing to inertia is the extra time required for patient education and writing a new set of orders – all work that can’t be captured for extra reimbursement. Dr. Edgerton said that rheumatologists can talk with patients about the “nocebo effect” relating to biosimilars. “This is a phenomenon in which patients are thought to experience worsening symptoms associated with negative beliefs about biosimilars. There has been a study in Arthritis Care & Research addressing this concern. The authors found that positive framing of biosimilars led to more participants being willing to switch than negative framing. This suggests that clinicians have an important role in informing patients about biosimilars, and addressing hesitancy.”
Finally, Dr. Yazdany pointed out that for a pharmaceutical company pursuing biosimilar approval, the regulatory pathway itself can provide its own set of complications and confusion. Biosimilars are not exact molecular replicas of the originator biologic, and these differences can change efficacy and immunogenicity, and also affect stability. Hence, a company wishing to market a biosimilar has to show the Food and Drug Administration that safety and efficacy aren’t affected by a switch to biosimilar from an originator biologic. Extrapolation from one indication to another can be made – with scientific justification.
Rheumatologists are mindful of the potential differences between biosimilars and the originator biologic, as evinced in a recent position statement from the American College of Rheumatology. The position statement advises that “extrapolation should be pursued with caution,” and asks for clear labeling when biosimilars have been designated “interchangeable” with their biosimilar. Interchangeability can clear the way for pharmacy substitution of a prescribed biologic, though Dr. Yazdany noted that 40 states have passed legislation requiring prescriber notification.
The FDA is currently using postmarketing pharmacovigilance to monitor biosimilar performance in the real world, and a recent systematic review “should provide some reassurance,” wrote Dr. Yazdany, citing the study, which looked at 14,000 patients who had a total of 14 disease indications for biosimilar use. The 90-article review largely found no differences in safety, efficacy, or immunogenicity between originators and their biosimilars. Dr. Yazdany recommended greater openness to incorporating the European experience in the FDA’s ongoing reassessment.
A further way forward can come through tackling the patent thicket with the proposed bipartisan Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which would require publication of biologic patents in a one-stop publicly searchable database. Going further with legislation to address anticompetitive activity by pharmaceutical companies could shorten the runway to biosimilar launching considerably, she noted.
The complicated landscape of PBMs and rebates affects many sectors of health care, and new policy efforts are needed here as well, she said. Reimbursement strategies – and much-needed continuing medical education – can both ease prescriber unfamiliarity with biosimilars and provide incentives for their use, she concluded.
Dr. Kim concurred that change is needed before the United States is likely to reap significant economic benefit from biosimilars. “The uptake of biosimilars and their impact on overall health care cost needs to be reevaluated when we have more biosimilars available in the next 3-4 years. However, for now, it appears that substantial savings achieved in some European countries – for example, Denmark – may not be possible without systemic reform of the U.S. pharmaceutical market,” she said.
Dr. Yazdany is supported by the Alice Betts Endowed Chair in Arthritis Research, the Russel/Engleman Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco, and the National Institutes of Health. She has received independent research grants from Pfizer and Genentech and research consulting fees from Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca.
Dr. Kim’s study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kim has received research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche.
SOURCES: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41201; Yazdany J. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41203.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Pubertal suppression reduces risk of later suicidal ideation in transgender people
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Frequent lab testing is common, but low-yield, for isotretinoin patients
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Uterine balloon tamponade found safe in postpartum hemorrhage
A new study summarizing and reanalyzing the .
Of 90 studies that reported efficacy data for uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), the procedure had overall success of 85.9% in treating postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). The pooled success rate was highest for women who were treated with a condom UBT, at 90.4%, compared with those treated with a Bakri balloon, at 83.2%, though the one randomized trial that compared the two devices head-to-head found no difference in success rates, wrote Sebastian Suarez, MD, and coauthors.
In all, the investigators looked at 91 studies involving 4,729 women who sustained PPH. The systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized studies, and case series in which UBT was used to treat PPH.
Dr. Suarez, of Boston University Medical Center, and colleagues explained that postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) accounts for more maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide than any other complication of pregnancy, with the vast majority of PPH deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
“While treatment of PPH varies depending on the cause, generally less invasive methods should be tried initially,” commented Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence,in interview. Dr. Martin, who was not involved in the study, explained that “these options typically include administration of uterotonics or pharmacologic agents, and tamponade of the uterus with intrauterine balloons.” The hope in using less invasive options is that pelvic artery embolization, other surgical techniques, or even hysterectomy can be avoided in the face of the emergency of severe PPH.
One retrospective, nonrandomized study compared UBT plus standard of care with standard of care alone for uterine atony after vaginal delivery. The study found significantly less blood loss (759 mL vs. 1,582 mL) and a 0.22 relative risk of surgical interventions and 0.18 relative risk of blood transfusion for women receiving UBT. However, the authors assessed the evidence for UBT in this study to be of very low quality. Two other RCTs compared UBT and no UBT, and the authors’ meta-analysis of these two studies showed no significant differences between the two groups in risk of maternal death or surgical interventions. The evidence was considered very low quality in these studies as well.
UBT was also examined in uterine atony after Cesarean delivery; a subgroup analysis found overall less efficacy than that in cases of vaginal delivery. Other subgroup analyses found that UBT was more likely to be successful when uterine atony or placenta previa was the cause of PPH, compared with PPH from placenta accreta spectrum or retained products of conception. Also, the overall success of UBT was higher for PPH in vaginal delivery, compared with Cesarean delivery, at 87% versus 81%, regardless of the etiology of hemorrhage.
Looking at safety of UBT, Dr. Suarez and coinvestigators found 39 studies reporting various complications of UBT use for PPH, not all of which reported on all complications. The overall rate for fever or infection was 6.5% in studies reporting on this complication, and endometritis was recorded in 2.3% of participants in studies tracking that complication. Cervical tears, laceration of the lower segment of the vagina, uterine incision rupture or uterine perforation, and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction were all reported in 2% or less of the patients participating in studies that recorded these complications.
The authors excluded studies that included simultaneous use of surgical techniques and UBT and those that involved UBT for hemorrhage after pregnancy loss with a gestation less than 20 weeks’ duration. However, studies were included if UBT was used after surgical procedure failure.
To assess the primary outcome of UBT success rate, the authors used the raw ratio of cases of success divided by the total number of women treated with UBT. For the analysis, successful UBT use was considered to be arrest of PPH bleeding without maternal death or other surgical or radiological interventions after UBT placement, regardless of the definition of “UBT success” used in each study. Similarly, the authors considered “UBT failure” to have occurred in cases of maternal death or when additional surgical or radiological interventions happened after UBT placement.
The authors considered a composite primary outcome measure for the RCT and nonrandomized studies that was made up of maternal death and/or surgical or radiologic interventions.
Secondary outcome measures included UBT’s success rate for individual PPH causes, frequency of surgical and invasive procedures, and maternal outcomes such as death, blood loss, transfusion, ICU admission, and complication rates.
Overall, about half of the studies (n = 48; 53%) were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Asian countries were the site of 46 studies, or 52% of the total. A quarter were conducted in Europe, and just five studies were conducted in the United States; the remainder were conducted in Africa or Latin America or were multinational studies.
Dr. Martin said that “[the review] findings provide reassurance that UBT can be implemented as a treatment option with a high success rate and low complication rate.” However, she noted, “There was a discrepancy between nonrandomized studies and RCTs on the efficacy and effectiveness of UBT.”
“Two randomized studies concluded there is no benefit to introduction of UBT in management of refractory PPH,” she continued. “The authors point out risk of bias and multiple methodological concerns that likely favored the control group in one effectiveness trial. Lack of benefit may have been due to suboptimal implementation strategies and lack of consistent UBT use.”
Dr. Martin concluded, “Overall, UBT success rates were consistently high across all study types. These findings are reassuring to the practicing clinician. There are many benefits to UBT including ease of use by a variety of health care providers, affordability, and its minimally invasive nature. Now there is evidence that UBT appears safe and has a high rate of success for management of PPH.”
The study’s senior author is a board member of the nonprofit organization Ujenzi Charitable Trust, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for the “Every Second Matters–Uterine Balloon Tamponade” device. Dr. Suarez reported that he had no financial conflicts of interest. The authors reported that there were no external sources of funding for the research. Dr. Martin serves on the editorial board of Ob.Gyn. News.
SOURCE: Suarez S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1287.
A new study summarizing and reanalyzing the .
Of 90 studies that reported efficacy data for uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), the procedure had overall success of 85.9% in treating postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). The pooled success rate was highest for women who were treated with a condom UBT, at 90.4%, compared with those treated with a Bakri balloon, at 83.2%, though the one randomized trial that compared the two devices head-to-head found no difference in success rates, wrote Sebastian Suarez, MD, and coauthors.
In all, the investigators looked at 91 studies involving 4,729 women who sustained PPH. The systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized studies, and case series in which UBT was used to treat PPH.
Dr. Suarez, of Boston University Medical Center, and colleagues explained that postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) accounts for more maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide than any other complication of pregnancy, with the vast majority of PPH deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
“While treatment of PPH varies depending on the cause, generally less invasive methods should be tried initially,” commented Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence,in interview. Dr. Martin, who was not involved in the study, explained that “these options typically include administration of uterotonics or pharmacologic agents, and tamponade of the uterus with intrauterine balloons.” The hope in using less invasive options is that pelvic artery embolization, other surgical techniques, or even hysterectomy can be avoided in the face of the emergency of severe PPH.
One retrospective, nonrandomized study compared UBT plus standard of care with standard of care alone for uterine atony after vaginal delivery. The study found significantly less blood loss (759 mL vs. 1,582 mL) and a 0.22 relative risk of surgical interventions and 0.18 relative risk of blood transfusion for women receiving UBT. However, the authors assessed the evidence for UBT in this study to be of very low quality. Two other RCTs compared UBT and no UBT, and the authors’ meta-analysis of these two studies showed no significant differences between the two groups in risk of maternal death or surgical interventions. The evidence was considered very low quality in these studies as well.
UBT was also examined in uterine atony after Cesarean delivery; a subgroup analysis found overall less efficacy than that in cases of vaginal delivery. Other subgroup analyses found that UBT was more likely to be successful when uterine atony or placenta previa was the cause of PPH, compared with PPH from placenta accreta spectrum or retained products of conception. Also, the overall success of UBT was higher for PPH in vaginal delivery, compared with Cesarean delivery, at 87% versus 81%, regardless of the etiology of hemorrhage.
Looking at safety of UBT, Dr. Suarez and coinvestigators found 39 studies reporting various complications of UBT use for PPH, not all of which reported on all complications. The overall rate for fever or infection was 6.5% in studies reporting on this complication, and endometritis was recorded in 2.3% of participants in studies tracking that complication. Cervical tears, laceration of the lower segment of the vagina, uterine incision rupture or uterine perforation, and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction were all reported in 2% or less of the patients participating in studies that recorded these complications.
The authors excluded studies that included simultaneous use of surgical techniques and UBT and those that involved UBT for hemorrhage after pregnancy loss with a gestation less than 20 weeks’ duration. However, studies were included if UBT was used after surgical procedure failure.
To assess the primary outcome of UBT success rate, the authors used the raw ratio of cases of success divided by the total number of women treated with UBT. For the analysis, successful UBT use was considered to be arrest of PPH bleeding without maternal death or other surgical or radiological interventions after UBT placement, regardless of the definition of “UBT success” used in each study. Similarly, the authors considered “UBT failure” to have occurred in cases of maternal death or when additional surgical or radiological interventions happened after UBT placement.
The authors considered a composite primary outcome measure for the RCT and nonrandomized studies that was made up of maternal death and/or surgical or radiologic interventions.
Secondary outcome measures included UBT’s success rate for individual PPH causes, frequency of surgical and invasive procedures, and maternal outcomes such as death, blood loss, transfusion, ICU admission, and complication rates.
Overall, about half of the studies (n = 48; 53%) were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Asian countries were the site of 46 studies, or 52% of the total. A quarter were conducted in Europe, and just five studies were conducted in the United States; the remainder were conducted in Africa or Latin America or were multinational studies.
Dr. Martin said that “[the review] findings provide reassurance that UBT can be implemented as a treatment option with a high success rate and low complication rate.” However, she noted, “There was a discrepancy between nonrandomized studies and RCTs on the efficacy and effectiveness of UBT.”
“Two randomized studies concluded there is no benefit to introduction of UBT in management of refractory PPH,” she continued. “The authors point out risk of bias and multiple methodological concerns that likely favored the control group in one effectiveness trial. Lack of benefit may have been due to suboptimal implementation strategies and lack of consistent UBT use.”
Dr. Martin concluded, “Overall, UBT success rates were consistently high across all study types. These findings are reassuring to the practicing clinician. There are many benefits to UBT including ease of use by a variety of health care providers, affordability, and its minimally invasive nature. Now there is evidence that UBT appears safe and has a high rate of success for management of PPH.”
The study’s senior author is a board member of the nonprofit organization Ujenzi Charitable Trust, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for the “Every Second Matters–Uterine Balloon Tamponade” device. Dr. Suarez reported that he had no financial conflicts of interest. The authors reported that there were no external sources of funding for the research. Dr. Martin serves on the editorial board of Ob.Gyn. News.
SOURCE: Suarez S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1287.
A new study summarizing and reanalyzing the .
Of 90 studies that reported efficacy data for uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), the procedure had overall success of 85.9% in treating postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). The pooled success rate was highest for women who were treated with a condom UBT, at 90.4%, compared with those treated with a Bakri balloon, at 83.2%, though the one randomized trial that compared the two devices head-to-head found no difference in success rates, wrote Sebastian Suarez, MD, and coauthors.
In all, the investigators looked at 91 studies involving 4,729 women who sustained PPH. The systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized studies, and case series in which UBT was used to treat PPH.
Dr. Suarez, of Boston University Medical Center, and colleagues explained that postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) accounts for more maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide than any other complication of pregnancy, with the vast majority of PPH deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
“While treatment of PPH varies depending on the cause, generally less invasive methods should be tried initially,” commented Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence,in interview. Dr. Martin, who was not involved in the study, explained that “these options typically include administration of uterotonics or pharmacologic agents, and tamponade of the uterus with intrauterine balloons.” The hope in using less invasive options is that pelvic artery embolization, other surgical techniques, or even hysterectomy can be avoided in the face of the emergency of severe PPH.
One retrospective, nonrandomized study compared UBT plus standard of care with standard of care alone for uterine atony after vaginal delivery. The study found significantly less blood loss (759 mL vs. 1,582 mL) and a 0.22 relative risk of surgical interventions and 0.18 relative risk of blood transfusion for women receiving UBT. However, the authors assessed the evidence for UBT in this study to be of very low quality. Two other RCTs compared UBT and no UBT, and the authors’ meta-analysis of these two studies showed no significant differences between the two groups in risk of maternal death or surgical interventions. The evidence was considered very low quality in these studies as well.
UBT was also examined in uterine atony after Cesarean delivery; a subgroup analysis found overall less efficacy than that in cases of vaginal delivery. Other subgroup analyses found that UBT was more likely to be successful when uterine atony or placenta previa was the cause of PPH, compared with PPH from placenta accreta spectrum or retained products of conception. Also, the overall success of UBT was higher for PPH in vaginal delivery, compared with Cesarean delivery, at 87% versus 81%, regardless of the etiology of hemorrhage.
Looking at safety of UBT, Dr. Suarez and coinvestigators found 39 studies reporting various complications of UBT use for PPH, not all of which reported on all complications. The overall rate for fever or infection was 6.5% in studies reporting on this complication, and endometritis was recorded in 2.3% of participants in studies tracking that complication. Cervical tears, laceration of the lower segment of the vagina, uterine incision rupture or uterine perforation, and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction were all reported in 2% or less of the patients participating in studies that recorded these complications.
The authors excluded studies that included simultaneous use of surgical techniques and UBT and those that involved UBT for hemorrhage after pregnancy loss with a gestation less than 20 weeks’ duration. However, studies were included if UBT was used after surgical procedure failure.
To assess the primary outcome of UBT success rate, the authors used the raw ratio of cases of success divided by the total number of women treated with UBT. For the analysis, successful UBT use was considered to be arrest of PPH bleeding without maternal death or other surgical or radiological interventions after UBT placement, regardless of the definition of “UBT success” used in each study. Similarly, the authors considered “UBT failure” to have occurred in cases of maternal death or when additional surgical or radiological interventions happened after UBT placement.
The authors considered a composite primary outcome measure for the RCT and nonrandomized studies that was made up of maternal death and/or surgical or radiologic interventions.
Secondary outcome measures included UBT’s success rate for individual PPH causes, frequency of surgical and invasive procedures, and maternal outcomes such as death, blood loss, transfusion, ICU admission, and complication rates.
Overall, about half of the studies (n = 48; 53%) were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Asian countries were the site of 46 studies, or 52% of the total. A quarter were conducted in Europe, and just five studies were conducted in the United States; the remainder were conducted in Africa or Latin America or were multinational studies.
Dr. Martin said that “[the review] findings provide reassurance that UBT can be implemented as a treatment option with a high success rate and low complication rate.” However, she noted, “There was a discrepancy between nonrandomized studies and RCTs on the efficacy and effectiveness of UBT.”
“Two randomized studies concluded there is no benefit to introduction of UBT in management of refractory PPH,” she continued. “The authors point out risk of bias and multiple methodological concerns that likely favored the control group in one effectiveness trial. Lack of benefit may have been due to suboptimal implementation strategies and lack of consistent UBT use.”
Dr. Martin concluded, “Overall, UBT success rates were consistently high across all study types. These findings are reassuring to the practicing clinician. There are many benefits to UBT including ease of use by a variety of health care providers, affordability, and its minimally invasive nature. Now there is evidence that UBT appears safe and has a high rate of success for management of PPH.”
The study’s senior author is a board member of the nonprofit organization Ujenzi Charitable Trust, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for the “Every Second Matters–Uterine Balloon Tamponade” device. Dr. Suarez reported that he had no financial conflicts of interest. The authors reported that there were no external sources of funding for the research. Dr. Martin serves on the editorial board of Ob.Gyn. News.
SOURCE: Suarez S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1287.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY