Megan Brooks

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 2/1/23.

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 2/1/23.

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 2/1/23.

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

More than half of emergency department visits from U.S. patients with cancer are potentially preventable, a new analysis suggests.

Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.

“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”

The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.

To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.

Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.

Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.

The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.

“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.

The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.

“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”

Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.

No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

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

More than half of emergency department visits from U.S. patients with cancer are potentially preventable, a new analysis suggests.

Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.

“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”

The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.

To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.

Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.

Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.

The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.

“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.

The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.

“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”

Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.

No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

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

More than half of emergency department visits from U.S. patients with cancer are potentially preventable, a new analysis suggests.

Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.

“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”

The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.

To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.

Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.

Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.

The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.

“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.

The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.

“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”

Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.

No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

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

Appendectomy may lead to harmful changes in the gut microbiome that contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC), a new report from China suggests.

In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.

The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.

Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.

A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.

In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.

The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.

In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.

In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.

Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”

First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.

Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

Appendectomy may lead to harmful changes in the gut microbiome that contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC), a new report from China suggests.

In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.

The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.

Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.

A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.

In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.

The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.

In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.

In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.

Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”

First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.

Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

Appendectomy may lead to harmful changes in the gut microbiome that contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC), a new report from China suggests.

In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.

The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.

Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.

A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.

In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.

The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.

In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.

In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.

Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”

First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.

Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

Treatment with a biologic agent was associated with a lower risk of advanced inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) but not Crohn’s disease (CD) in an observational study conducted in Japan.

IBD-associated intestinal cancer is thought to be caused by chronic inflammation of the intestinal mucosa, and controlling inflammation is thought to be effective in reducing cancer risk.

It’s generally considered that biologics do not change the risk of cancer, and whether they lower the risk remains unclear, write Ryo Seishima, MD, PhD, with Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. However, few studies have focused on cancer progression, namely, the risk of advanced-stage cancer.

To investigate, researchers reviewed the medical records of 828 patients with UC and 214 with CD who were diagnosed with IBD-associated intestinal neoplasia (dysplasia or cancer) from 1983 to 2020.

Therapeutic agents taken within 1 year before neoplasia diagnosis were classified into three types: biologics (infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, and adalimumab), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), and immunomodulators.

The primary endpoint was the pathologic cancer stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage cancer was defined as either dysplasia or pathologic stage 0/I cancer, and advanced-stage cancer was defined as pathologic stage II/III/IV cancer.

Advanced-stage cancer was found in 297 patients (35.9%) with UC and 159 patients (74.3%) with CD.

The researchers say the higher percentage of advanced cancer in patients with CD rather than in patients with UC may suggest that regular surveillance was not effective for patients with CD or that physicians were less adherent to surveillance intervals. This question merits further study, they suggest.

None of the drug types were significantly associated with cancer stage in the CD cohort, they report.

Benefits seen in UC

In the UC cohort, advanced-stage cancer (vs. early-stage) was significantly associated with less use of biologics (2% vs. 7.7%; P < .001), 5-ASA (75.4% vs. 87.6%; P < .001), and immunomodulators (11.8% vs. 22.4%; P < .001). Steroid use was also significantly lower in the advanced-stage cancer group (26.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .035).

In multivariate analysis that was adjusted for age, diagnosis year, regular surveillance, and histologic type in UC, biologics (odds ratio, 0.11; P < .001) and 5-ASA (OR, 0.63; P = .041) were significantly associated with a lower risk of advanced-stage cancer.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“These results indicate that biologics and 5-ASA are drugs that are potentially associated with a lower risk of advanced cancer in patients with UC but not with CD,” Dr. Seishima and colleagues say.

They also suggest that the mechanism of cancer progression in UC and CD may differ and needs to be investigated further.

Reassuring data with caveats

The study is “interesting and reassuring, but there are a lot of limitations with the study design,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

“By focusing only on those who have been diagnosed with cancer, one cannot actually conclude what the risk of cancer is and if these medications reduce the risk of colon cancer, which is a far more important and interesting question,” he said.

Patients undergoing treatment with biologics likely receive closer follow-up, so in these patients, cancers are less likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage, said Dr. Ananthakrishnan. For that reason, the study can’t clearly establish the degree to which the effect was from medication or surveillance, he added.

As for whether biologics affect the overall risk of cancer development, the study doesn’t change “current thinking that biologics are safe in this setting,” he added.

Erin Forster, MD, MPH, with the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also weighed in on medication safety.

“Prior research has shown that the risk of uncontrolled inflammation outweighs the risk of our current medications,” Dr. Forster, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Seishima, Dr. Ananthakrishnan, and Dr. Forster have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with a biologic agent was associated with a lower risk of advanced inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) but not Crohn’s disease (CD) in an observational study conducted in Japan.

IBD-associated intestinal cancer is thought to be caused by chronic inflammation of the intestinal mucosa, and controlling inflammation is thought to be effective in reducing cancer risk.

It’s generally considered that biologics do not change the risk of cancer, and whether they lower the risk remains unclear, write Ryo Seishima, MD, PhD, with Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. However, few studies have focused on cancer progression, namely, the risk of advanced-stage cancer.

To investigate, researchers reviewed the medical records of 828 patients with UC and 214 with CD who were diagnosed with IBD-associated intestinal neoplasia (dysplasia or cancer) from 1983 to 2020.

Therapeutic agents taken within 1 year before neoplasia diagnosis were classified into three types: biologics (infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, and adalimumab), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), and immunomodulators.

The primary endpoint was the pathologic cancer stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage cancer was defined as either dysplasia or pathologic stage 0/I cancer, and advanced-stage cancer was defined as pathologic stage II/III/IV cancer.

Advanced-stage cancer was found in 297 patients (35.9%) with UC and 159 patients (74.3%) with CD.

The researchers say the higher percentage of advanced cancer in patients with CD rather than in patients with UC may suggest that regular surveillance was not effective for patients with CD or that physicians were less adherent to surveillance intervals. This question merits further study, they suggest.

None of the drug types were significantly associated with cancer stage in the CD cohort, they report.

Benefits seen in UC

In the UC cohort, advanced-stage cancer (vs. early-stage) was significantly associated with less use of biologics (2% vs. 7.7%; P < .001), 5-ASA (75.4% vs. 87.6%; P < .001), and immunomodulators (11.8% vs. 22.4%; P < .001). Steroid use was also significantly lower in the advanced-stage cancer group (26.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .035).

In multivariate analysis that was adjusted for age, diagnosis year, regular surveillance, and histologic type in UC, biologics (odds ratio, 0.11; P < .001) and 5-ASA (OR, 0.63; P = .041) were significantly associated with a lower risk of advanced-stage cancer.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“These results indicate that biologics and 5-ASA are drugs that are potentially associated with a lower risk of advanced cancer in patients with UC but not with CD,” Dr. Seishima and colleagues say.

They also suggest that the mechanism of cancer progression in UC and CD may differ and needs to be investigated further.

Reassuring data with caveats

The study is “interesting and reassuring, but there are a lot of limitations with the study design,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

“By focusing only on those who have been diagnosed with cancer, one cannot actually conclude what the risk of cancer is and if these medications reduce the risk of colon cancer, which is a far more important and interesting question,” he said.

Patients undergoing treatment with biologics likely receive closer follow-up, so in these patients, cancers are less likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage, said Dr. Ananthakrishnan. For that reason, the study can’t clearly establish the degree to which the effect was from medication or surveillance, he added.

As for whether biologics affect the overall risk of cancer development, the study doesn’t change “current thinking that biologics are safe in this setting,” he added.

Erin Forster, MD, MPH, with the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also weighed in on medication safety.

“Prior research has shown that the risk of uncontrolled inflammation outweighs the risk of our current medications,” Dr. Forster, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Seishima, Dr. Ananthakrishnan, and Dr. Forster have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with a biologic agent was associated with a lower risk of advanced inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) but not Crohn’s disease (CD) in an observational study conducted in Japan.

IBD-associated intestinal cancer is thought to be caused by chronic inflammation of the intestinal mucosa, and controlling inflammation is thought to be effective in reducing cancer risk.

It’s generally considered that biologics do not change the risk of cancer, and whether they lower the risk remains unclear, write Ryo Seishima, MD, PhD, with Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. However, few studies have focused on cancer progression, namely, the risk of advanced-stage cancer.

To investigate, researchers reviewed the medical records of 828 patients with UC and 214 with CD who were diagnosed with IBD-associated intestinal neoplasia (dysplasia or cancer) from 1983 to 2020.

Therapeutic agents taken within 1 year before neoplasia diagnosis were classified into three types: biologics (infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, and adalimumab), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), and immunomodulators.

The primary endpoint was the pathologic cancer stage at the time of diagnosis. Early-stage cancer was defined as either dysplasia or pathologic stage 0/I cancer, and advanced-stage cancer was defined as pathologic stage II/III/IV cancer.

Advanced-stage cancer was found in 297 patients (35.9%) with UC and 159 patients (74.3%) with CD.

The researchers say the higher percentage of advanced cancer in patients with CD rather than in patients with UC may suggest that regular surveillance was not effective for patients with CD or that physicians were less adherent to surveillance intervals. This question merits further study, they suggest.

None of the drug types were significantly associated with cancer stage in the CD cohort, they report.

Benefits seen in UC

In the UC cohort, advanced-stage cancer (vs. early-stage) was significantly associated with less use of biologics (2% vs. 7.7%; P < .001), 5-ASA (75.4% vs. 87.6%; P < .001), and immunomodulators (11.8% vs. 22.4%; P < .001). Steroid use was also significantly lower in the advanced-stage cancer group (26.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .035).

In multivariate analysis that was adjusted for age, diagnosis year, regular surveillance, and histologic type in UC, biologics (odds ratio, 0.11; P < .001) and 5-ASA (OR, 0.63; P = .041) were significantly associated with a lower risk of advanced-stage cancer.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“These results indicate that biologics and 5-ASA are drugs that are potentially associated with a lower risk of advanced cancer in patients with UC but not with CD,” Dr. Seishima and colleagues say.

They also suggest that the mechanism of cancer progression in UC and CD may differ and needs to be investigated further.

Reassuring data with caveats

The study is “interesting and reassuring, but there are a lot of limitations with the study design,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

“By focusing only on those who have been diagnosed with cancer, one cannot actually conclude what the risk of cancer is and if these medications reduce the risk of colon cancer, which is a far more important and interesting question,” he said.

Patients undergoing treatment with biologics likely receive closer follow-up, so in these patients, cancers are less likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage, said Dr. Ananthakrishnan. For that reason, the study can’t clearly establish the degree to which the effect was from medication or surveillance, he added.

As for whether biologics affect the overall risk of cancer development, the study doesn’t change “current thinking that biologics are safe in this setting,” he added.

Erin Forster, MD, MPH, with the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also weighed in on medication safety.

“Prior research has shown that the risk of uncontrolled inflammation outweighs the risk of our current medications,” Dr. Forster, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Seishima, Dr. Ananthakrishnan, and Dr. Forster have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

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

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

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

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

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