Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Adding pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but only if their tumors were enriched with comparatively high levels of the target programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), results of the KEYNOTE 355 trial showed.

Among 843 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) randomized to receive either investigator’s choice of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) or placebo, patients whose tumors had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or higher had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months when treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, compared with 5.6 months among patients treated with chemotherapy and placebo, reported Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, from the Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology in Madrid and Barcelona.

However, among patients with CPS between 1 and 10, there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms, he said in a presentation made as a part of the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The inclusion of taxanes and a known taxane/platinum–based regimen permits assessment of the clinical benefit of pembro in combination with several routinely used chemo partners. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment was observed in patients treated with pembro plus chemo. The improvement in progression-free survival with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab was observed across patient subgroups,” said Dr. Cortes.

In the KEYNOTE-522 study, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting increased the likelihood that women with stage III or early node-positive TNBC would have a pathologic complete response and sustained clinical benefit.

KEYNOTE-355 examined whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could provide additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC.

Patients with previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had at least 6 months between definite surgery or last dose of adjuvant chemotherapy (whichever came last) and first disease recurrence were stratified by study chemotherapy received, tumor PD-L1 expression at baseline, and prior treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting.

The patients were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy based on the investigator’s choice of nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or carboplatin-gemcitabine (562 patients) or to chemotherapy alone (281).

Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered in a double-blind fashion for up to 35 doses. Chemotherapy was given at the investigator’s discretion according to local guidelines. This trial was not powered or designed to compare differential efficacy of the various chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Cortes noted.

The trial had dual primary endpoints of PFS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (CPS > 10 and > 1) and in the intention-to-treat population, and overall survival both in PD-L1-positive patients and the ITT population. Overall survival results will be reported at a later date.

As noted before, the primary endpoint was met in the population of patients with CPS higher than 10, with median PFS of 9.7 among those receiving pembrolizumab versus 5.6 months among those receiving placebo, and an estimated 1 year PFS of 39.1% versus 23% for controls, translating into a hazard ratio for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P = .0012).

In the patients with CPS higher than 1, however, the median PFS was 7.6 months with pembrolizumab compared with 5.6 months with placebo, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.74. However, the results did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. Because of this, the statistical significance in the ITT population was not tested.

“In patients with PD-L1 CPS 10 or higher tumors, the benefit of pembro/chemo on progression-free survival was generally consistent across most predefined subgroups, including eight geographic regions, ECOG performance status, on-study chemo, and prior treatment with the same class of chemo,” Dr. Cortes said.

Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.3% of the patients on pembrolizumab and 95% of patients on placebo. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 68.1% versus 66.9%, respectively. Two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died from a treatment-related event. There were no treatment-related deaths in the placebo arm.

The most common events were those typically associated with chemotherapy, including anemia, neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil counts, and elevated liver transaminases. Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 25.6% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm versus 6% of controls; none of these events were fatal.

“What is clear in this study is that again we’re seeing efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases with increases in CPS,” according to the invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB, BCh, from University College Dublin and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin.

“The results from today’s KEYNOTE-355 appear consistent in terms of progression-free survival. However, it is ‘watch this space’ until we get overall survival data before we can make any further comparisons,” she added.

Questions that still need to be answered include which is the best test for measuring PD-L1, whether patients with CPS of 1 or more but less than 10 benefit from the treatment, which of the available chemotherapy regimens is the best partner for pembrolizumab, how to treat patients who don’t respond to the combination, and what are the implications for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in late-stage disease if they are approved in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, Dr. Kelly said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Cortes disclosed honoraria from, a consulting/advisory role for, and institutional research funding from Merck and others. Dr. Kelly disclosed honoraria from MSD Oncology and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche.

SOURCE: Cortes J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1000.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine spiked right after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in March, but use of the drugs still remains well above 2019 levels, based on data from more than 58,000 U.S. pharmacies.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine are also doing better than any of the prescription drugs in the top 10 based on total claims in 2019, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and associates reported May 28 in a research letter in JAMA.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine have been above 2019 levels every week since the national emergency was declared on March 13, with the high occurring during the week of March 15-21, when fills were 214% higher than the corresponding week in 2019. The lowest level in that time came during the week of April 12-18, with growth of 14.6% over 2019, the investigators said.

The drugs occupying the top 10 – amlodipine, amoxicillin, atorvastatin, gabapentin, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, levothyroxine, lisinopril, losartan, omeprazole, and sertraline – have not done as well. Losartan, the only one that hasn’t lost ground in any week since March 13, rose by almost 49% during March 15-21, but was down to a 1.7% rise by the end of the study period, they reported.

Meanwhile, the other drug touted as a treatment for COVID-19, azithromycin, has fallen farther than most of the top 10. By April 19-25, the last week of the study period, fills for the antibiotic were down 62.7%, compared with last year, the analysis showed. Only amoxicillin had dropped more (64.4%).

“The modest decline for most common long-term therapies after peak could represent reduced contact with prescribing clinicians, restricted access to pharmacies, pharmacist rationing, loss of insurance from unemployment, or replete supplies from early stockpiling,” Dr. Vaduganathan and associates wrote.

The investigators “used all-payer U.S. pharmacy data from 58,332 chain, independent, and mail-order pharmacies across 14,421 zip codes in 50 states, reflecting approximately 17 million deidentified claims,” to estimate national prescription fills, they explained.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. JAMA 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9184.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine spiked right after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in March, but use of the drugs still remains well above 2019 levels, based on data from more than 58,000 U.S. pharmacies.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine are also doing better than any of the prescription drugs in the top 10 based on total claims in 2019, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and associates reported May 28 in a research letter in JAMA.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine have been above 2019 levels every week since the national emergency was declared on March 13, with the high occurring during the week of March 15-21, when fills were 214% higher than the corresponding week in 2019. The lowest level in that time came during the week of April 12-18, with growth of 14.6% over 2019, the investigators said.

The drugs occupying the top 10 – amlodipine, amoxicillin, atorvastatin, gabapentin, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, levothyroxine, lisinopril, losartan, omeprazole, and sertraline – have not done as well. Losartan, the only one that hasn’t lost ground in any week since March 13, rose by almost 49% during March 15-21, but was down to a 1.7% rise by the end of the study period, they reported.

Meanwhile, the other drug touted as a treatment for COVID-19, azithromycin, has fallen farther than most of the top 10. By April 19-25, the last week of the study period, fills for the antibiotic were down 62.7%, compared with last year, the analysis showed. Only amoxicillin had dropped more (64.4%).

“The modest decline for most common long-term therapies after peak could represent reduced contact with prescribing clinicians, restricted access to pharmacies, pharmacist rationing, loss of insurance from unemployment, or replete supplies from early stockpiling,” Dr. Vaduganathan and associates wrote.

The investigators “used all-payer U.S. pharmacy data from 58,332 chain, independent, and mail-order pharmacies across 14,421 zip codes in 50 states, reflecting approximately 17 million deidentified claims,” to estimate national prescription fills, they explained.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. JAMA 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9184.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine spiked right after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in March, but use of the drugs still remains well above 2019 levels, based on data from more than 58,000 U.S. pharmacies.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine are also doing better than any of the prescription drugs in the top 10 based on total claims in 2019, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and associates reported May 28 in a research letter in JAMA.

Prescription fills for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine have been above 2019 levels every week since the national emergency was declared on March 13, with the high occurring during the week of March 15-21, when fills were 214% higher than the corresponding week in 2019. The lowest level in that time came during the week of April 12-18, with growth of 14.6% over 2019, the investigators said.

The drugs occupying the top 10 – amlodipine, amoxicillin, atorvastatin, gabapentin, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, levothyroxine, lisinopril, losartan, omeprazole, and sertraline – have not done as well. Losartan, the only one that hasn’t lost ground in any week since March 13, rose by almost 49% during March 15-21, but was down to a 1.7% rise by the end of the study period, they reported.

Meanwhile, the other drug touted as a treatment for COVID-19, azithromycin, has fallen farther than most of the top 10. By April 19-25, the last week of the study period, fills for the antibiotic were down 62.7%, compared with last year, the analysis showed. Only amoxicillin had dropped more (64.4%).

“The modest decline for most common long-term therapies after peak could represent reduced contact with prescribing clinicians, restricted access to pharmacies, pharmacist rationing, loss of insurance from unemployment, or replete supplies from early stockpiling,” Dr. Vaduganathan and associates wrote.

The investigators “used all-payer U.S. pharmacy data from 58,332 chain, independent, and mail-order pharmacies across 14,421 zip codes in 50 states, reflecting approximately 17 million deidentified claims,” to estimate national prescription fills, they explained.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. JAMA 2020 May 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9184.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a medication for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”

Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.

Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.

Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.

The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration approved a medication for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”

Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.

Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.

Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.

The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration approved a medication for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”

Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.

Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.

Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.

The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.

Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.

NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.

Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.

The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.

It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.

By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
 

Requests for recall apply only to affected products

The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.

“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.

The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.

Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.

The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.

Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.

“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.

For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.

Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.

NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.

Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.

The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.

It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.

By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
 

Requests for recall apply only to affected products

The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.

“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.

The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.

Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.

The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.

Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.

“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.

For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended voluntary recall of certain extended-release (ER) versions of metformin because testing has revealed excessive levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in these products.

Metformin is the most commonly prescribed drug used to treat type 2 diabetes worldwide.

NDMA is a contaminant with the potential to be carcinogenic if there is exposure to above-acceptable levels over the long-term.

Five pharmaceutical firms in particular are being contacted by the FDA with notices (posted on the FDA website) recommending they voluntarily recall their products. At the time of writing, only one was listed, Apotex Corp and its metformin hydrochloride ER tablets, USP 500 mg.

The recall does not apply to immediate-release metformin products, the most commonly prescribed ones for diabetes, the agency stresses.

It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the US supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 2 years.

By February 2020, the agency had identified very low levels of NDMA in some samples, but at that time, no FDA-tested sample of metformin exceeded the acceptable intake limit for NDMA, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Now that we have identified some metformin products that do not meet our standards, we’re taking action. As we have been doing since this impurity was first identified, we will communicate as new scientific information becomes available and will take further action, if appropriate,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
 

Requests for recall apply only to affected products

The recall was instigated after the FDA became aware of reports of higher levels of NDMA in certain ER formulations of metformin through a citizen petition filed by a private laboratory. The agency confirmed unacceptable NDMA levels in some, but not all, of those lots.

“In other instances, our laboratory detected NDMA in lots that the private laboratory did not,” it notes.

The FDA says it is working closely with manufacturers of the recalled tablets to identify the source of the NDMA impurity and ensure appropriate testing is carried out.

Elevated levels of NDMA have been found in some finished-dose tablets of the ER formulations but NDMA has not been detected in samples of the metformin active pharmaceutical ingredient.

The FDA also stresses there are many other additional manufacturers that supply metformin ER products to much of the US market, and they are not being asked to recall their products.

Work is also ongoing to determine whether the drug recalls will result in shortages, and if so, the agency says it will collaborate with manufacturers to prevent or reduce any impact of shortages.

“We understand that patients may have concerns about possible impurities in their medicines and want to assure the public that we have been looking closely at this problem over many months in order to provide patients and healthcare professionals with clear and accurate answers,” Cavazzoni said.

For more information about NDMA, visit the FDA nitrosamines web page.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flortaucipir F18 injection (Tauvid, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals), the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET, to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.

“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.

“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.

“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
 

Clinical trial results

Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.

The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.

The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.

Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.

According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
 

Initial limited availability

The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).

The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.

In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.

The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.

The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.

The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”

Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flortaucipir F18 injection (Tauvid, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals), the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET, to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.

“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.

“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.

“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
 

Clinical trial results

Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.

The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.

The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.

Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.

According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
 

Initial limited availability

The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).

The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.

In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.

The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.

The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.

The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”

Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved flortaucipir F18 injection (Tauvid, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals), the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET, to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in adults with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer disease.

“While there are FDA-approved imaging drugs for amyloid pathology, this is the first drug approved for imaging tau pathology, one of the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease, and represents a major advance for patients with cognitive impairment being evaluated for the condition,” Charles Ganley, MD, director of the Office of Specialty Medicine at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA news release.

“The use of diagnostic imaging can help patients and their families plan for the future and make informed choices about their health and well-being, in addition to facilitating appropriate patient management for physicians,” Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a company news release.

“Determining the anatomic distribution and density of tau NFTs in the brain was previously possible only at autopsy. Now we have a way to obtain this important information in patients,” said Dr. Sperling.
 

Clinical trial results

Following intravenous administration, flortaucipir F18 binds to tau pathology in the brain and can be seen on a PET scan.

The safety and effectiveness of the tau tracer were demonstrated in two clinical studies. In each study, five evaluators, blinded to clinical information, interpreted the flortaucipir F18 PET scan results as positive or negative.

The first study included 156 terminally ill patients who agreed to undergo flortaucipir F18 PET imaging and to donate their brains after death. Of these patients, 64 died within 9 months of undergoing brain scanning. The evaluators’ readings of these scans were compared with postmortem readings from independent pathologists blinded to scan results.

Evaluators reading the flortaucipir F18 PET scans had a “high probability” of correctly evaluating patients with tau pathology and had an “average to high probability” of correctly evaluating patients without tau pathology, the FDA said in the release.

According to the company, reader sensitivity ranged from 92% (95% confidence interval, 80%-97%) to 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%). Specificity ranged from 52% (95% CI, 34%-70%) to 92% (95% CI, 75%-98%).
 

Initial limited availability

The second study included the same patients with terminal illness as the first study, plus 18 additional patients who had terminal illness and 159 patients who had cognitive impairment and were being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease (the indicated population).

The study gauged how well evaluators’ readings of flortaucipir F18 PET scans agreed with each other’s assessments of the readings. In this study, reader agreement was 0.87 (perfect agreement was indicated as 1) across all 241 patients.

In a separate subgroup analysis that included the 82 terminally ill patients who were diagnosed after death and the 159 patients with cognitive impairment, reader agreement was 0.90 for the patients in the indicated population and 0.82 in the terminally ill patients.

The FDA noted that the ability of flortaucipir F18 PET scans to detect tau pathology was assessed in patients with generally severe stages of dementia and may be lower in patients with cognitive decline of earlier stages.

The most common adverse reactions among patients who received flortaucipir F18 injection were headache, injection site pain, and an increase in blood pressure. The tau radiotracer is not indicated for use in the evaluation of patients for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

The FDA granted flortaucipir F18 priority review, in which the FDA aims to take action on an application within 6 months of the time the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing, or preventing a serious condition.

The company said that the availability of flortaucipir F18 will initially be “limited and will expand in response to commercial demand and payor reimbursement.”

Alzheimer’s disease is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. In 2014, 5 million Americans were living with the disease, according to federal health officials. That number is projected to nearly triple to 14 million by 2060.

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

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.

For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.

Gerardo Valentin, BSN, RN, CCDS

The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.

For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.

Gerardo Valentin, BSN, RN, CCDS

The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.

For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.

Gerardo Valentin, BSN, RN, CCDS

Hospitalized pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk for preterm birth and cesarean delivery, data from northern Italy suggest.

Herjua/Thinkstock

Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.

Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.

To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.

The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.

“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.

Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.

“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”

Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.

“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.

Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.

Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.

“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H₁N₁) pandemic,” she said.

“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.

One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
 

Hospitalized pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk for preterm birth and cesarean delivery, data from northern Italy suggest.

Herjua/Thinkstock

Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.

Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.

To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.

The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.

“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.

Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.

“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”

Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.

“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.

Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.

Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.

“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H₁N₁) pandemic,” she said.

“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.

One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
 

Hospitalized pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk for preterm birth and cesarean delivery, data from northern Italy suggest.

Herjua/Thinkstock

Among 57 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent vaginal or cesarean delivery, 7 had spontaneous preterm or respiratory-indicated preterm delivery, a rate of 12%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. For comparison, 7% of patients had preterm delivery in 2019, researchers reported “We also noted a high cesarean delivery rate in the study population (39% vs. 27% in the same area in 2019), mainly as a result of maternal respiratory-indicated urgent delivery,” wrote Valeria M. Savasi, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and Luigi Sacco Hospital, also in Milan, and colleagues.

Data do not indicate that pregnant women are more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection, nor have studies suggested an increased risk of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, or early pregnancy loss in pregnant patients with COVID-19, the authors wrote. Studies have described an increased risk of preterm birth, however.

To study clinical features of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential factors associated with severe disease and iatrogenic delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues conducted a prospective study of 77 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted during pregnancy or the immediate postpartum period in 12 maternity hospitals in northern Italy between Feb. 23 and March 28, 2020.

The investigators classified patients as having severe disease if they underwent urgent delivery based on maternal respiratory function or if they were admitted to an ICU or subintensive care department. In all, 14 patients (18%) were classified as having severe disease.

“Three patients were intubated after emergency cesarean delivery performed for maternal deterioration, and one patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues reported. The results are consistent with epidemiologic data in the nonpregnant population with COVID-19 disease.

Of 11 patients with severe disease who underwent urgent delivery for respiratory compromise, 6 had significant postpartum improvement in clinical conditions. No maternal deaths occurred.

“Increased BMI [body mass index] was a significant risk factor for severe disease,” Dr. Savasi and colleagues wrote. “Fever and dyspnea on admission were symptoms significantly associated with subsequent severe maternal respiratory deterioration.”

Most patients (65%) were admitted during the third trimester, and 20 patients were still pregnant at discharge.

“Nine newborns were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit,” the authors wrote. “Interestingly, besides prematurity, fetal oxygenation and well-being at delivery were not apparently affected by the maternal acute conditions.” Three newborns with vaginal delivery and one with cesarean delivery tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The newborns may have been infected after delivery, Dr. Savasi and colleagues added. For all newborns, rooming-in and breastfeeding were performed, and none developed respiratory symptoms.

Criteria for hospital admission and therapeutic protocols may have varied between hospitals, the authors noted. In addition, the study included 12 patients who were asymptomatic and admitted for obstetric indications. These patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 because of contact with an infected individual. Most patients were symptomatic, however, which explains the high rate of maternal severe outcomes. Hospitals have since adopted a universal SARS-CoV-2 screening policy for hospitalized pregnant patients.

Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, commented in an interview that Savasi et al. describe one of the larger COVID-19 in pregnancy cohorts to date with rates of severe disease and delivery for respiratory compromise, which is remarkably similar to Washington state (severe disease, 18% vs. nearly 15%; delivery for respiratory compromise, 16% vs. 20%). As in Washington state, Italian women with a higher prepregnancy BMI were overrepresented in the severe disease group.

“Data are beginning to emerge that identify women who were overweight or obese prior to pregnancy as a high risk group for developing severe COVID-19. These data are similar to known associations between obesity and critical illness in pregnancy during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ (influenza A virus, H₁N₁) pandemic,” she said.

“This study and others indicate that the late second and third trimesters may be a time when women are more likely to be symptomatic from COVID-19. It remains unclear if women in the first trimester are protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes or have outcomes similar to nonpregnant women,” concluded Dr. Waldorf.

One study author disclosed receiving funds from Lo Li Pharma and Zambongroup. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Savasi VM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003979.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.