CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.

Name: Catherine Gao, MD

Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University

Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow


Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience

Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.


1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.

2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.

3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.

4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!

CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.

Name: Catherine Gao, MD

Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University

Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow


Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience

Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.


1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.

2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.

3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.

4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!

CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners. In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including Clinical Disease Category Winner Dr. Gao.

Name: Catherine Gao, MD

Institutional Affiliation: Northwestern University

Position: Pulmonary & Critical Care Fellow


Title: Time to Vent: A Blended Learning Experience

Brief Summary: It is difficult for ventilated patients to communicate, and this is cited by patients as one of the most stressful parts of their ICU stays. Brain-computer interface technology allows for communication to happen directly from brain wave activity and represents a potential tool to fix this problem.


1. What inspired your innovation? Every clinician has had the frustrating experience of difficulty communicating with their ventilated patients, and it is even more challenging for patients and their families. I read about recent advances in communication methods from the neurology literature and thought about expanding this technology to the ICU.

2. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? This is still an early idea with technology still being developed – there have been investments by the military and large tech companies, as well as universities – it will take time for the technology to be ready for clinical use, and there will be troubleshooting needed as with all new technologies.

3. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The judges gave great feedback and had wonderful suggestions and questions. This is just the beginning.

4. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? This was a great experience to talk about interesting ideas, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people with similar interests after the presentation. I thank CHEST for this amazing opportunity and look forward to the years to come!

Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.

The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.

“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.

According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.

To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:

• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.

• Provide positive role models and mentors.

• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”

• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.

The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
 

Reference

The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.

Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.

The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.

“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.

According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.

To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:

• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.

• Provide positive role models and mentors.

• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”

• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.

The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
 

Reference

The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.

Developing resilient nurses and work environments can help organizations prevent burnout.

The Joint Commission released an advisory urging health-care organizations to promote resilience as a way to combat and prevent nurse burnout.

“Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout,” in The Joint Commission’s Quick Safety newsletter, notes that 15.6% of all nurses in a survey of more than 2,000 healthcare partners reported experiencing burnout “with emergency room nurses being at a higher risk,” which can affect the physical and emotional health of staff, as well as patient safety, mortality, and satisfaction.

According to data presented in the article, omitting nurses from the decision-making process, security risks, a need for more autonomy, and staffing challenges are the most common factors associated with nurse burnout.

To promote resilience in nurses and in the work environment, which can help prevent and reduce burnout among nurses and other front-line staff, health-care organizations should consider a number of strategies, including the following:

• Teach nurses and nurse leaders the elements of resilience, such as empowerment and colleague support, and how to identify symptoms of burnout.

• Provide positive role models and mentors.

• “Engage nursing input in staff meetings by posting an agenda and asking for additional items the nurses would like to discuss or present.”

• Measure the well-being of health-care providers; try interventions and then assess their effectiveness.

The article also notes that “mindfulness and resilience training alone cannot effectively address burnout unless the leadership is simultaneously reducing and eliminating barriers and impediments to nursing workflow, such as staffing and workplace environment concerns.”
 

Reference

The Joint Commission. Developing resilience to combat nurse burnout. Quick Safety. 2019;(50):1-4.

Original Research

Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.

Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.

An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.

CHEST Review

Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
 

How I Do It

An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.








 

Original Research

Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.

Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.

An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.

CHEST Review

Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
 

How I Do It

An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.








 

Original Research

Safety and Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty When FEV1 Is Less Than 50%.
By Dr. D. Langton, et al.

Utilization and Outcomes of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
By S. E. Beyer, et al.

An Individualized Prediction Model for Long-term Lung Function Trajectory and Risk of COPD in the General Population.
By Dr. W. Chen, et al.

CHEST Review

Six-Minute Walk Test: Clinical Role, Technique, Coding, and Reimbursement.
By Dr. P. Agarwala, et al.
 

How I Do It

An Algorithmic Approach to the Interpretation of Diffuse Lung Disease on Chest CT Imaging: A Theory of Almost Everything.
By Dr. J. F. Gruden, et al.








 

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

Economically, the modest safety benefit of tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (Descovy) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis won’t justify paying thousands of dollars more for it when tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (Truvada) becomes available as a generic in a year or so, according to a population level cost-effectiveness analysis presented at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers held a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

Those benefits will translate to a health savings worth only a few hundred dollars over the likely generic price, said investigators led by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

In a press statement, Gilead, which makes both medications, said it “strongly believes that the analysis ... is flawed, leading to inaccurate conclusions that severely underestimate the value of Descovy. The method and validation of the models, incomplete clinical data analyzed and the assumptions around potential pricing associated with a generic alternative to Truvada ... are inadequate to enable a sufficiently robust analysis.”

The company did not go into details about what exactly might have been off about the analysis.

Approved in Oct. 2019, tenofovir alafenamide-emtricitabine (also known as F/TAF) is the first new option for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) since tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (F/TDF) was approved in 2012; F/TDF is going off patent soon.

Amid a robust marketing campaign, the new medication has already captured 25% of the PrEP market, and Gilead expects up to 45% of patients to switch to F/TAF before generic F/TDF becomes available.

That worries the investigators. “At the current FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] price of $16,600 per year,” a nationwide PrEP program that uses F/TAF “would consume the entire $900.8 million federal budget for HIV prevention several times over ... If branded F/TAF drives out generic F/TDF,” rates of PrEP coverage “could decrease, and F/TAF could end up causing more avoidable HIV transmissions” than it prevents. “Given the very small, albeit statistically significant, differences in surrogate [safety] markers, without evidence of clinical significance, there is no urgency and no reason to switch PrEP regimens now,” they said. Both medications were equally effective in preventing HIV transmission in Gilead’s head-to-head phase 3 trial, but there was an a mean of about a 4 mL/min difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 48 and about a 2% difference in hip and spine density at week 96, both favoring F/TAF. Marketing highlights those differences.

The investigators wanted to see how much they are worth, so they estimated savings from a possibly lower rate of bone fractures and renal failure with F/TAF and juxtaposed it with its cost and the anticipated cost of generic F/TDF at half-price, $8,300/patient-year.

They gave F/TAF the benefit of the doubt, skewing their model toward maximal harm and cost from F/TDF toxicity, and omitting the cost of increased lipid levels, weight gain, and other possible F/TAF adverse events.

In the end, they concluded that “the improved safety of F/TAF is worth no more than an additional $370 per person per year” over generic F/TDF based on toxicity differences. “Payers should consider the $370 premium ceiling estimated here in assessing whether to recommend that patients switch to F/TAF.”

The team calculated that F/TAF would prevent a maximum of 2,101 fractures and 25 cases of end-stage renal disease among 123,610 U.S. men who have sex with men treated for 5 years. That translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $7 million per quality-adjusted life-year, far above the $100,000 threshold considered acceptable in the United States.

“In the presence of a generic alternative, the current price of F/TAF would have to be reduced by over $7,900/year for F/TAF to satisfy generally accepted standards of societal value. If F/TDF can achieve the 75% price reduction that is commonly observed when generic competition ensues (that is, a cost of $4,150/year), the F/TAF price would need to be no higher than $4,520 to demonstrate value on the basis of cost-effectiveness,” the investigators said.

For older patients at unusually high risk for renal disease or bone-related adverse events, the switch from F/TDF to F/TAF would have greater clinical effect and benefit. Even in this population, however, it would be difficult to defend a price greater than $800 over the cost of the generic alternative,” they said.

“The message seems clear that the current cost of F/TAF does not justify wholesale conversion to F/TAF as the first-line agent for all PrEP-eligible patients,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, and Wendy Armstrong, MD, infectious disease professors at Emory University, Atlanta, in an editorial. “For PrEP-eligible persons at low risk for fracture and renal disease, it is very hard to justify use of F/TAF knowing that F/TDF will soon be generic” (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M20-0799).

“Successful PrEP scale-up in other countries was made possible by drug costs that are less than $100/month in most countries. In the United States, without drastic reductions in the cost of PrEP, which may be achievable with generic F/TDF ... we will fail to avert otherwise preventable new HIV transmissions,” they said.

The study was simultaneously published online (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478).

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. The investigators and editorialists didn’t have any industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walensky RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3478.

MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.

“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.

“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.

“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”

Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.

“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.

In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.

“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.

Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

 

More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA

In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.

Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.

 

ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued

The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.

“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.

Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.

“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.

“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.

Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.

“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.

Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.

“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.

“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.

“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”

Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.

“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.

In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.

“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.

Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

 

More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA

In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.

Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.

 

ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued

The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.

“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.

Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.

“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.

“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.

Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.

“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.

Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.

“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.

“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.

“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”

Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.

“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.

In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.

“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.

Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

 

More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA

In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.

Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.

 

ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued

The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.

“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.

Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.

“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.

“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.

Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.

“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.

Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.