Article

Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.^1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.⁴

Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.^5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.^9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.^5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.¹¹ Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.^12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.

Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.¹⁴ There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.

OBSERVATIONS

The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.

In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.

All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.⁹ The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.

Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.¹⁵

Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.^7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.

Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure).

TRANSITION AND RESULTS

From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.

Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.^1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.⁴

Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.^5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.^9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.^5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.¹¹ Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.^12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.

Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.¹⁴ There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.

OBSERVATIONS

The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.

In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.

All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.⁹ The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.

Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.¹⁵

Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.^7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.

Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure).

TRANSITION AND RESULTS

From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.

Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.^1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.⁴

Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.^5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.^9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.^5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.¹¹ Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.^12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.

Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.¹⁴ There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.

OBSERVATIONS

The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.

In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.

All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.⁹ The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.

Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.¹⁵

Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.^7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.

Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure).

TRANSITION AND RESULTS

From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.¹ If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.

Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.

This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.¹ If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.

Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.

This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.¹ If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.

Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.

This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge¹ did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.

Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),² ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).

In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Details of the study

Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).³ The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).

Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).

Study strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.

The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.

Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.

The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.

A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.

Other studies considered

Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.

A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.⁴ Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).

An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).⁵

A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).⁶

In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.⁷ This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●

Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge¹ did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.

Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),² ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).

In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Details of the study

Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).³ The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).

Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).

Study strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.

The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.

Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.

The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.

A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.

Other studies considered

Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.

A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.⁴ Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).

An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).⁵

A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).⁶

In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.⁷ This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●

Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge¹ did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.

Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),² ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).

In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Details of the study

Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).³ The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).

Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).

Study strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.

The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.

Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.

The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.

A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.

Other studies considered

Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.

A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.⁴ Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).

An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).⁵

A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).⁶

In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.⁷ This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●

This is the longest reported median PFS in HER2+ metastatic BC, highlighting the potential of trastuzumab deruxtecan in treating this disease and confirming this drug as the standard of care in the second-line setting.

A cohort study evaluated 315 postmenopausal BC survivors to estimate the association of physical activity with risk for all-cause mortality. Participants were queried about leisure-time physical activity using the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ), which provided a composite score that categorized exercise patterns as active, moderately active, or insufficiently active at baseline.

Results showed that participants who were active or moderately active had a 60% decreased risk for death compared with insufficiently active participants (active: HR 0.42 [95% CI 0.21-0.85]; moderately active: HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.17-0.95]). A similar mortality risk was reported among participants who were active and those with moderate physical activity levels.

Prior studies¹ have reported similar results, reaffirming the value of exercise in BC survivors and highlighting the need to incorporate physical activity as part of survivorship care plans.

The phase 3 SOPHIA study randomized 536 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who had received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens to margetuximab plus chemotherapy vs trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Final OS results after a median follow-up of 20.2 months showed no benefit in OS observed with margetuximab vs trastuzumab (median OS 21.6 months vs 21.9 months; HR 0.95; P = .620). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients vs trastuzumab (median OS 23.6 vs 19.2 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients vs margetuximab (median OS 31.1 vs 22.0 months; HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.01–3.12). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Further studies to evaluate the role of margetuximab in patients with HER2+ BC with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

Additional References

Cannioto RA, Hutson A, Dighe S, et al. Physical activity before, during, and after chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: Relationships with survival.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:54-63. Doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa046

This is the longest reported median PFS in HER2+ metastatic BC, highlighting the potential of trastuzumab deruxtecan in treating this disease and confirming this drug as the standard of care in the second-line setting.

A cohort study evaluated 315 postmenopausal BC survivors to estimate the association of physical activity with risk for all-cause mortality. Participants were queried about leisure-time physical activity using the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ), which provided a composite score that categorized exercise patterns as active, moderately active, or insufficiently active at baseline.

Results showed that participants who were active or moderately active had a 60% decreased risk for death compared with insufficiently active participants (active: HR 0.42 [95% CI 0.21-0.85]; moderately active: HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.17-0.95]). A similar mortality risk was reported among participants who were active and those with moderate physical activity levels.

Prior studies¹ have reported similar results, reaffirming the value of exercise in BC survivors and highlighting the need to incorporate physical activity as part of survivorship care plans.

The phase 3 SOPHIA study randomized 536 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who had received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens to margetuximab plus chemotherapy vs trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Final OS results after a median follow-up of 20.2 months showed no benefit in OS observed with margetuximab vs trastuzumab (median OS 21.6 months vs 21.9 months; HR 0.95; P = .620). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients vs trastuzumab (median OS 23.6 vs 19.2 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients vs margetuximab (median OS 31.1 vs 22.0 months; HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.01–3.12). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Further studies to evaluate the role of margetuximab in patients with HER2+ BC with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

Additional References

Cannioto RA, Hutson A, Dighe S, et al. Physical activity before, during, and after chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: Relationships with survival.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:54-63. Doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa046

This is the longest reported median PFS in HER2+ metastatic BC, highlighting the potential of trastuzumab deruxtecan in treating this disease and confirming this drug as the standard of care in the second-line setting.

A cohort study evaluated 315 postmenopausal BC survivors to estimate the association of physical activity with risk for all-cause mortality. Participants were queried about leisure-time physical activity using the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ), which provided a composite score that categorized exercise patterns as active, moderately active, or insufficiently active at baseline.

Results showed that participants who were active or moderately active had a 60% decreased risk for death compared with insufficiently active participants (active: HR 0.42 [95% CI 0.21-0.85]; moderately active: HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.17-0.95]). A similar mortality risk was reported among participants who were active and those with moderate physical activity levels.

Prior studies¹ have reported similar results, reaffirming the value of exercise in BC survivors and highlighting the need to incorporate physical activity as part of survivorship care plans.

The phase 3 SOPHIA study randomized 536 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who had received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens to margetuximab plus chemotherapy vs trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Final OS results after a median follow-up of 20.2 months showed no benefit in OS observed with margetuximab vs trastuzumab (median OS 21.6 months vs 21.9 months; HR 0.95; P = .620). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients vs trastuzumab (median OS 23.6 vs 19.2 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients vs margetuximab (median OS 31.1 vs 22.0 months; HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.01–3.12). The safety profile of margetuximab was acceptable and comparable to that of trastuzumab. Further studies to evaluate the role of margetuximab in patients with HER2+ BC with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

Additional References

Cannioto RA, Hutson A, Dighe S, et al. Physical activity before, during, and after chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: Relationships with survival.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:54-63. Doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa046

To the Editor:

Angiosarcoma is a malignancy of the vascular endothelium that most commonly presents on the skin.¹ Patients diagnosed with cutaneous angiosarcoma, which is a rare and aggressive malignancy, have a 5-year survival rate of approximately 30%.^2,3 Angiosarcoma can be seen in the setting of chronic lymphedema; radiation therapy; and sporadically in elderly patients, where it is commonly seen on the head and neck. Presentation on the head and neck has been associated with worse outcomes, with a projected overall 10-year survival rate of 13.8%; the survival rate is lower if the tumor is surgically unresectable or larger in size. Metastasis can occur via both lymphatic and hematogenous routes, with pulmonary and hepatic metastases most frequently observed.¹ Prognostications of poor outcomes for patients with head and neck cutaneous angiosarcoma via a 5-year survival rate were identified in a meta-analysis and included the following: patient age older than 70 years, larger tumors, tumor location of scalp vs face, nonsurgical treatments, and lack of clear margins on histology.²

Treatment of angiosarcoma historically has encompassed both surgical resection and adjuvant radiation therapy with suboptimal success. Evidence supporting various treatment regimens remains sparse due to the low incidence of the neoplasm. Although surgical resection is the only documented curative treatment, cutaneous angiosarcomas frequently are found to have positive surgical margins and require adjuvant radiation. Use of high-dose radiation (>50 Gy) with application over a wide treatment area such as total scalp irradiation is recommended.⁴ Although radiation has been found to diminish local recurrence rates, it has not substantially affected rates of distant disease recurrence.¹ Cytotoxic chemotherapy has clinical utility in minimizing progression, but standard regimens afford a progression-free survival of only months.³ Adjuvant treatment with paclitaxel has been shown to have improved efficacy in scalp angiosarcoma vs other visceral sites, showing a nonprogression rate of 42% at 4 months after treatment.⁵ More recently, targeted chemotherapeutics, including the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab and tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, have shown some survival benefit, but it is unclear if these agents are superior to traditional cytotoxic agents.^4,6-10 A phase 2 study of paclitaxel administered weekly with or without bevacizumab showed similar progression-free survival and overall survival, albeit at the expense of added toxicity experienced by participants in the combined group.¹⁰

The addition of the nonselective β-adrenergic blocker propranolol to the treatment armamentarium, which was pursued due to its utility in the treatment of benign infantile hemangioma and demonstrated ability to limit the expression of adrenergic receptors in angiosarcoma, has gained clinical attention for possible augmentation of cutaneous angiosarcoma therapy.^11-14 Propranolol has been shown to reduce metastasis in other neoplasms—both vascular and nonvascular—and may play a role as an adjuvant treatment to current therapies in angiosarcoma.^15-20 We report a patient with cutaneous angiosarcoma (T2 classification) with disease-free survival of nearly 6 years without evidence of recurrence in the setting of continuous propranolol use supplementary to chemotherapy and radiation.

A 78-year-old man with a history of multiple basal cell carcinomas, hypertension, and remote smoking history presented to the dermatology clinic with an enlarging red-brown plaque on the scalp of 2 months’ duration. The lesion had grown rapidly to involve the forehead, right temple, preauricular region, and parietal scalp. At presentation, the tumor measured more than 20 cm in diameter at its greatest point (Figure 1). Physical examination revealed a 6-mm purple nodule within the lesion on the patient’s right parietal scalp. No clinical lymphadenopathy was appreciated at the time of diagnosis. Punch biopsies of the right parietal scalp nodule and right temple patch showed findings consistent with angiosarcoma with diffuse cytoplasmic staining of CD31 in atypical endothelial cells and no staining for human herpesvirus 8 (Figure 2). Concurrent computed tomography of the head showed thickening of the right epidermis, dermis, and deeper scalp tissues, but there was no evidence of skull involvement. Computed tomography of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis showed no evidence of metastatic disease. After a diagnostic workup, the patient was diagnosed with T2bN0M0 angiosarcoma.

The lesion was determined to be nonresectable due to the extent of the patient’s cutaneous disease. The patient was started on a regimen of paclitaxel, scalp radiation, and oral propranolol. Propranolol 40 mg twice daily was initiated at the time of diagnosis with a plan to continue indefinitely. Starting 1 month after staging, the patient completed 10 weekly cycles of paclitaxel, and he was treated with 60 Gy of scalp radiation in 30 fractions, starting with the second cycle of paclitaxel. He tolerated both well with no reported adverse events. Repeat computed tomography performed 1 month after completion of chemotherapy and radiation showed no evidence of a mass or fluid collection in subcutaneous scalp tissues and no evidence of metastatic disease. This correlated with an observed clinical regression at 1 month and complete clinical response at 5 months with residual hemosiderin and radiation changes. The area of prior disease involvement subsequently evolved from violet to dusky gray in appearance to an eventual complete resolution 26 months after diagnosis, accompanied by atrophic radiation-induced sequelae (Figure 3).

The patient’s postchemotherapy course was complicated by hospitalization for a suspected malignant pleural effusion. Analysis revealed growing ground-glass opacities and nodules in the right lower lung lobe. A thoracentesis with cytology studies was negative for malignancy. Continued monitoring over 19 months demonstrated eventual resolution of those findings. He experienced notable complication from local radiation therapy to the scalp with chronic cutaneous ulceration refractory to wound care and surgical intervention. The patient did not exhibit additional signs or symptoms concerning for recurrence or metastasis and was followed by dermatology and oncology until he died nearly 5 years after initial diagnosis due to complications from acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. The last imaging obtained showed no convincing evidence of metastasis, though spinal imaging within a month of his death showed lesions favored to represent benign angiomatous growths. His survival after diagnosis ultimately reached 57 months without confirmed disease recurrence and cause of death unrelated to malignancy history, which is a markedly long documented survival for this extent of disease.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is an aggressive yet rare malignancy without effective treatments for prolonging survival or eradicating disease. Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the head and neck has a reported 10-year survival rate of 13.8%.¹ Although angiosarcoma in any location holds a bleak prognosis, cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp with a T2 classification has a 2-year survival rate of 0%. Moreover, even if remission is achieved, disease is highly recurrent, typically within months with the current standard of care.^3,21,22

Emerging evidence for the possible role of β-adrenergic receptor blockade in the treatment of malignant vascular neoplasms is promising. Microarrays from a host of vascular growths have demonstrated expression of β-adrenergic receptors in 77% of sampled angiosarcoma specimens in addition to strong expression in infantile hemangiomas, hemangiomas, hemangioendotheliomas, and vascular malformations.¹⁹ Research findings have further verified the validity of this approach with the demonstration of b₁-, b₂-, and b₃- adrenergic receptor expression by angiosarcoma cell lines. Propranolol subsequently was shown to effectively target proliferation of these cells and induce apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner and moreover be synergistic in effect with other chemotherapies.¹⁵ Several genes have exhibited differential expression between control tumor cells and propranolol-treated cells. Specifically, target genes including AXL (a receptor tyrosine kinase associated with cell adhesion, proliferation, and apoptosis and found to upregulated in melanoma and leukemia) and ERBB receptor feedback inhibitor 1 (receptor tyrosine kinase, with ERBB family members commonly overexpressed or mutated in the setting malignancy) have been posited as possible explanatory factors in the observed angiosarcoma response to propranolol.²³

Several cases describing propranolol use as an adjunctive therapy for angiosarcoma suggest a beneficial role in clinical medicine. One case report described propranolol monotherapy for lesion to our patient, with a resultant reduction in Ki-67 as a measure of proliferative index within 1 week of initiating propranolol therapy.¹³ Propranolol also has been shown to halt or slow progression of metastatic disease in visceral and metastatic angiosarcomas.^12-14 In combination with oral etoposide and cyclophosphamide, maintenance propranolol therapy in 7 cases of advanced cutaneous angiosarcoma resulted in 1 complete response and 3 very good partial responses, with a median progression-free survival of 11 months.¹¹ Larger-scale studies have not been published, but the growing number of case reports and case series warrants further investigation of the utility of propranolol as an adjunct to current therapies in advanced angiosarcoma.

To the Editor:

Angiosarcoma is a malignancy of the vascular endothelium that most commonly presents on the skin.¹ Patients diagnosed with cutaneous angiosarcoma, which is a rare and aggressive malignancy, have a 5-year survival rate of approximately 30%.^2,3 Angiosarcoma can be seen in the setting of chronic lymphedema; radiation therapy; and sporadically in elderly patients, where it is commonly seen on the head and neck. Presentation on the head and neck has been associated with worse outcomes, with a projected overall 10-year survival rate of 13.8%; the survival rate is lower if the tumor is surgically unresectable or larger in size. Metastasis can occur via both lymphatic and hematogenous routes, with pulmonary and hepatic metastases most frequently observed.¹ Prognostications of poor outcomes for patients with head and neck cutaneous angiosarcoma via a 5-year survival rate were identified in a meta-analysis and included the following: patient age older than 70 years, larger tumors, tumor location of scalp vs face, nonsurgical treatments, and lack of clear margins on histology.²

Treatment of angiosarcoma historically has encompassed both surgical resection and adjuvant radiation therapy with suboptimal success. Evidence supporting various treatment regimens remains sparse due to the low incidence of the neoplasm. Although surgical resection is the only documented curative treatment, cutaneous angiosarcomas frequently are found to have positive surgical margins and require adjuvant radiation. Use of high-dose radiation (>50 Gy) with application over a wide treatment area such as total scalp irradiation is recommended.⁴ Although radiation has been found to diminish local recurrence rates, it has not substantially affected rates of distant disease recurrence.¹ Cytotoxic chemotherapy has clinical utility in minimizing progression, but standard regimens afford a progression-free survival of only months.³ Adjuvant treatment with paclitaxel has been shown to have improved efficacy in scalp angiosarcoma vs other visceral sites, showing a nonprogression rate of 42% at 4 months after treatment.⁵ More recently, targeted chemotherapeutics, including the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab and tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, have shown some survival benefit, but it is unclear if these agents are superior to traditional cytotoxic agents.^4,6-10 A phase 2 study of paclitaxel administered weekly with or without bevacizumab showed similar progression-free survival and overall survival, albeit at the expense of added toxicity experienced by participants in the combined group.¹⁰

The addition of the nonselective β-adrenergic blocker propranolol to the treatment armamentarium, which was pursued due to its utility in the treatment of benign infantile hemangioma and demonstrated ability to limit the expression of adrenergic receptors in angiosarcoma, has gained clinical attention for possible augmentation of cutaneous angiosarcoma therapy.^11-14 Propranolol has been shown to reduce metastasis in other neoplasms—both vascular and nonvascular—and may play a role as an adjuvant treatment to current therapies in angiosarcoma.^15-20 We report a patient with cutaneous angiosarcoma (T2 classification) with disease-free survival of nearly 6 years without evidence of recurrence in the setting of continuous propranolol use supplementary to chemotherapy and radiation.

A 78-year-old man with a history of multiple basal cell carcinomas, hypertension, and remote smoking history presented to the dermatology clinic with an enlarging red-brown plaque on the scalp of 2 months’ duration. The lesion had grown rapidly to involve the forehead, right temple, preauricular region, and parietal scalp. At presentation, the tumor measured more than 20 cm in diameter at its greatest point (Figure 1). Physical examination revealed a 6-mm purple nodule within the lesion on the patient’s right parietal scalp. No clinical lymphadenopathy was appreciated at the time of diagnosis. Punch biopsies of the right parietal scalp nodule and right temple patch showed findings consistent with angiosarcoma with diffuse cytoplasmic staining of CD31 in atypical endothelial cells and no staining for human herpesvirus 8 (Figure 2). Concurrent computed tomography of the head showed thickening of the right epidermis, dermis, and deeper scalp tissues, but there was no evidence of skull involvement. Computed tomography of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis showed no evidence of metastatic disease. After a diagnostic workup, the patient was diagnosed with T2bN0M0 angiosarcoma.

The lesion was determined to be nonresectable due to the extent of the patient’s cutaneous disease. The patient was started on a regimen of paclitaxel, scalp radiation, and oral propranolol. Propranolol 40 mg twice daily was initiated at the time of diagnosis with a plan to continue indefinitely. Starting 1 month after staging, the patient completed 10 weekly cycles of paclitaxel, and he was treated with 60 Gy of scalp radiation in 30 fractions, starting with the second cycle of paclitaxel. He tolerated both well with no reported adverse events. Repeat computed tomography performed 1 month after completion of chemotherapy and radiation showed no evidence of a mass or fluid collection in subcutaneous scalp tissues and no evidence of metastatic disease. This correlated with an observed clinical regression at 1 month and complete clinical response at 5 months with residual hemosiderin and radiation changes. The area of prior disease involvement subsequently evolved from violet to dusky gray in appearance to an eventual complete resolution 26 months after diagnosis, accompanied by atrophic radiation-induced sequelae (Figure 3).

The patient’s postchemotherapy course was complicated by hospitalization for a suspected malignant pleural effusion. Analysis revealed growing ground-glass opacities and nodules in the right lower lung lobe. A thoracentesis with cytology studies was negative for malignancy. Continued monitoring over 19 months demonstrated eventual resolution of those findings. He experienced notable complication from local radiation therapy to the scalp with chronic cutaneous ulceration refractory to wound care and surgical intervention. The patient did not exhibit additional signs or symptoms concerning for recurrence or metastasis and was followed by dermatology and oncology until he died nearly 5 years after initial diagnosis due to complications from acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. The last imaging obtained showed no convincing evidence of metastasis, though spinal imaging within a month of his death showed lesions favored to represent benign angiomatous growths. His survival after diagnosis ultimately reached 57 months without confirmed disease recurrence and cause of death unrelated to malignancy history, which is a markedly long documented survival for this extent of disease.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is an aggressive yet rare malignancy without effective treatments for prolonging survival or eradicating disease. Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the head and neck has a reported 10-year survival rate of 13.8%.¹ Although angiosarcoma in any location holds a bleak prognosis, cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp with a T2 classification has a 2-year survival rate of 0%. Moreover, even if remission is achieved, disease is highly recurrent, typically within months with the current standard of care.^3,21,22

Emerging evidence for the possible role of β-adrenergic receptor blockade in the treatment of malignant vascular neoplasms is promising. Microarrays from a host of vascular growths have demonstrated expression of β-adrenergic receptors in 77% of sampled angiosarcoma specimens in addition to strong expression in infantile hemangiomas, hemangiomas, hemangioendotheliomas, and vascular malformations.¹⁹ Research findings have further verified the validity of this approach with the demonstration of b₁-, b₂-, and b₃- adrenergic receptor expression by angiosarcoma cell lines. Propranolol subsequently was shown to effectively target proliferation of these cells and induce apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner and moreover be synergistic in effect with other chemotherapies.¹⁵ Several genes have exhibited differential expression between control tumor cells and propranolol-treated cells. Specifically, target genes including AXL (a receptor tyrosine kinase associated with cell adhesion, proliferation, and apoptosis and found to upregulated in melanoma and leukemia) and ERBB receptor feedback inhibitor 1 (receptor tyrosine kinase, with ERBB family members commonly overexpressed or mutated in the setting malignancy) have been posited as possible explanatory factors in the observed angiosarcoma response to propranolol.²³

Several cases describing propranolol use as an adjunctive therapy for angiosarcoma suggest a beneficial role in clinical medicine. One case report described propranolol monotherapy for lesion to our patient, with a resultant reduction in Ki-67 as a measure of proliferative index within 1 week of initiating propranolol therapy.¹³ Propranolol also has been shown to halt or slow progression of metastatic disease in visceral and metastatic angiosarcomas.^12-14 In combination with oral etoposide and cyclophosphamide, maintenance propranolol therapy in 7 cases of advanced cutaneous angiosarcoma resulted in 1 complete response and 3 very good partial responses, with a median progression-free survival of 11 months.¹¹ Larger-scale studies have not been published, but the growing number of case reports and case series warrants further investigation of the utility of propranolol as an adjunct to current therapies in advanced angiosarcoma.

To the Editor:

Angiosarcoma is a malignancy of the vascular endothelium that most commonly presents on the skin.¹ Patients diagnosed with cutaneous angiosarcoma, which is a rare and aggressive malignancy, have a 5-year survival rate of approximately 30%.^2,3 Angiosarcoma can be seen in the setting of chronic lymphedema; radiation therapy; and sporadically in elderly patients, where it is commonly seen on the head and neck. Presentation on the head and neck has been associated with worse outcomes, with a projected overall 10-year survival rate of 13.8%; the survival rate is lower if the tumor is surgically unresectable or larger in size. Metastasis can occur via both lymphatic and hematogenous routes, with pulmonary and hepatic metastases most frequently observed.¹ Prognostications of poor outcomes for patients with head and neck cutaneous angiosarcoma via a 5-year survival rate were identified in a meta-analysis and included the following: patient age older than 70 years, larger tumors, tumor location of scalp vs face, nonsurgical treatments, and lack of clear margins on histology.²

Treatment of angiosarcoma historically has encompassed both surgical resection and adjuvant radiation therapy with suboptimal success. Evidence supporting various treatment regimens remains sparse due to the low incidence of the neoplasm. Although surgical resection is the only documented curative treatment, cutaneous angiosarcomas frequently are found to have positive surgical margins and require adjuvant radiation. Use of high-dose radiation (>50 Gy) with application over a wide treatment area such as total scalp irradiation is recommended.⁴ Although radiation has been found to diminish local recurrence rates, it has not substantially affected rates of distant disease recurrence.¹ Cytotoxic chemotherapy has clinical utility in minimizing progression, but standard regimens afford a progression-free survival of only months.³ Adjuvant treatment with paclitaxel has been shown to have improved efficacy in scalp angiosarcoma vs other visceral sites, showing a nonprogression rate of 42% at 4 months after treatment.⁵ More recently, targeted chemotherapeutics, including the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab and tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, have shown some survival benefit, but it is unclear if these agents are superior to traditional cytotoxic agents.^4,6-10 A phase 2 study of paclitaxel administered weekly with or without bevacizumab showed similar progression-free survival and overall survival, albeit at the expense of added toxicity experienced by participants in the combined group.¹⁰

The addition of the nonselective β-adrenergic blocker propranolol to the treatment armamentarium, which was pursued due to its utility in the treatment of benign infantile hemangioma and demonstrated ability to limit the expression of adrenergic receptors in angiosarcoma, has gained clinical attention for possible augmentation of cutaneous angiosarcoma therapy.^11-14 Propranolol has been shown to reduce metastasis in other neoplasms—both vascular and nonvascular—and may play a role as an adjuvant treatment to current therapies in angiosarcoma.^15-20 We report a patient with cutaneous angiosarcoma (T2 classification) with disease-free survival of nearly 6 years without evidence of recurrence in the setting of continuous propranolol use supplementary to chemotherapy and radiation.

A 78-year-old man with a history of multiple basal cell carcinomas, hypertension, and remote smoking history presented to the dermatology clinic with an enlarging red-brown plaque on the scalp of 2 months’ duration. The lesion had grown rapidly to involve the forehead, right temple, preauricular region, and parietal scalp. At presentation, the tumor measured more than 20 cm in diameter at its greatest point (Figure 1). Physical examination revealed a 6-mm purple nodule within the lesion on the patient’s right parietal scalp. No clinical lymphadenopathy was appreciated at the time of diagnosis. Punch biopsies of the right parietal scalp nodule and right temple patch showed findings consistent with angiosarcoma with diffuse cytoplasmic staining of CD31 in atypical endothelial cells and no staining for human herpesvirus 8 (Figure 2). Concurrent computed tomography of the head showed thickening of the right epidermis, dermis, and deeper scalp tissues, but there was no evidence of skull involvement. Computed tomography of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis showed no evidence of metastatic disease. After a diagnostic workup, the patient was diagnosed with T2bN0M0 angiosarcoma.

The lesion was determined to be nonresectable due to the extent of the patient’s cutaneous disease. The patient was started on a regimen of paclitaxel, scalp radiation, and oral propranolol. Propranolol 40 mg twice daily was initiated at the time of diagnosis with a plan to continue indefinitely. Starting 1 month after staging, the patient completed 10 weekly cycles of paclitaxel, and he was treated with 60 Gy of scalp radiation in 30 fractions, starting with the second cycle of paclitaxel. He tolerated both well with no reported adverse events. Repeat computed tomography performed 1 month after completion of chemotherapy and radiation showed no evidence of a mass or fluid collection in subcutaneous scalp tissues and no evidence of metastatic disease. This correlated with an observed clinical regression at 1 month and complete clinical response at 5 months with residual hemosiderin and radiation changes. The area of prior disease involvement subsequently evolved from violet to dusky gray in appearance to an eventual complete resolution 26 months after diagnosis, accompanied by atrophic radiation-induced sequelae (Figure 3).

The patient’s postchemotherapy course was complicated by hospitalization for a suspected malignant pleural effusion. Analysis revealed growing ground-glass opacities and nodules in the right lower lung lobe. A thoracentesis with cytology studies was negative for malignancy. Continued monitoring over 19 months demonstrated eventual resolution of those findings. He experienced notable complication from local radiation therapy to the scalp with chronic cutaneous ulceration refractory to wound care and surgical intervention. The patient did not exhibit additional signs or symptoms concerning for recurrence or metastasis and was followed by dermatology and oncology until he died nearly 5 years after initial diagnosis due to complications from acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. The last imaging obtained showed no convincing evidence of metastasis, though spinal imaging within a month of his death showed lesions favored to represent benign angiomatous growths. His survival after diagnosis ultimately reached 57 months without confirmed disease recurrence and cause of death unrelated to malignancy history, which is a markedly long documented survival for this extent of disease.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is an aggressive yet rare malignancy without effective treatments for prolonging survival or eradicating disease. Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the head and neck has a reported 10-year survival rate of 13.8%.¹ Although angiosarcoma in any location holds a bleak prognosis, cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp with a T2 classification has a 2-year survival rate of 0%. Moreover, even if remission is achieved, disease is highly recurrent, typically within months with the current standard of care.^3,21,22

Emerging evidence for the possible role of β-adrenergic receptor blockade in the treatment of malignant vascular neoplasms is promising. Microarrays from a host of vascular growths have demonstrated expression of β-adrenergic receptors in 77% of sampled angiosarcoma specimens in addition to strong expression in infantile hemangiomas, hemangiomas, hemangioendotheliomas, and vascular malformations.¹⁹ Research findings have further verified the validity of this approach with the demonstration of b₁-, b₂-, and b₃- adrenergic receptor expression by angiosarcoma cell lines. Propranolol subsequently was shown to effectively target proliferation of these cells and induce apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner and moreover be synergistic in effect with other chemotherapies.¹⁵ Several genes have exhibited differential expression between control tumor cells and propranolol-treated cells. Specifically, target genes including AXL (a receptor tyrosine kinase associated with cell adhesion, proliferation, and apoptosis and found to upregulated in melanoma and leukemia) and ERBB receptor feedback inhibitor 1 (receptor tyrosine kinase, with ERBB family members commonly overexpressed or mutated in the setting malignancy) have been posited as possible explanatory factors in the observed angiosarcoma response to propranolol.²³

Several cases describing propranolol use as an adjunctive therapy for angiosarcoma suggest a beneficial role in clinical medicine. One case report described propranolol monotherapy for lesion to our patient, with a resultant reduction in Ki-67 as a measure of proliferative index within 1 week of initiating propranolol therapy.¹³ Propranolol also has been shown to halt or slow progression of metastatic disease in visceral and metastatic angiosarcomas.^12-14 In combination with oral etoposide and cyclophosphamide, maintenance propranolol therapy in 7 cases of advanced cutaneous angiosarcoma resulted in 1 complete response and 3 very good partial responses, with a median progression-free survival of 11 months.¹¹ Larger-scale studies have not been published, but the growing number of case reports and case series warrants further investigation of the utility of propranolol as an adjunct to current therapies in advanced angiosarcoma.