Randy Dotinga

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

Nearly all patients treated with a one-time gene therapy shot for hemophilia B (HB) were able to discontinue full-dose bleeding prophylaxis, a new industry-funded phase 3 study finds, and annual bleed rates (ABR) fell by 64% after the lead-in period.

The report on the gene therapy treatment, known as etranacogene dezaparvovec (EtranaDez), was released at the Feb. 2-4, 2022, annual meeting of the European Association of Hemophilia and Allied Disorders.

In an interview, study lead author Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Frankfurt in Germany, touted the decline in ABR. “This statistically significant reduction not only met the primary endpoint for non-inferiority but also demonstrates clear superiority of etranacogene dezaparvovec to prophylaxis in the lead-in period,” he said. “In addition to that, the quality of life improved significantly, [and] there was an overall favorable safety profile.”

Hemophilia B is much rarer than hemophilia A. In a 2020 report, the CDC estimated that type A accounted for less than a quarter of the 29,761-32,985 cases of U.S. males who had hemophilia from 2012-2018. The rest had type B. Most of the males with hemophilia were white (81.2%) and fairly young (just 20.6% were older than 39).
 

High adherence and high prices

Factor IX (FIX) replacement therapy aims to boost levels of the blood-clotting protein in patients with severe hepatitis B. However, the intravenous prophylactic treatment requires a “high level of adherence” due to the need for self-administration several times a week, Dr. Miesbach said, adding that the treatment does not reliably prevent bleeding and joint destruction.

Also, the price of FIX replacement therapy in the United States is exorbitant, costing an average of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.

The gene therapy treatment, formerly known as AMT-061, “consists of a functional FIX gene with higher activity than the wild-type FIX (Padua variant), together with an AAV (AAV5),” Dr. Miesbach said. “AAV 5 is a vector with high liver tropism to transduce the liver cells and lead to the production of the functional FIX gene there.”

For the new open-label, single-dose, single-arm HOPE-B study, researchers treated 54 adult men with severe or moderately severe HB (FIX ≤2%), 31 with and 23 without preexisting AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. The average age was 41.5, 81.5% had severe cases (FIX<1%), and 25.9% had no bleeds at lead-in.

The participants began 12 months of treatment with gene therapy following a 6-month lead-in period of FIX prophylaxis. All but one completed follow-up.

“Mean FIX activity was 39.0 IU/dL (±18.7; 8.2, 97.1) (standard deviation; min, max) at month 6 and 36.9 IU/dL (±21.4; 4.5, 122.9) at month 18,” the researchers reported. ABR dropped by 64% from the lead-in period to the 12-month treatment period (4.19 vs. 1.51, P = .0002), and FIX-treated bleeds fell by 77% (ABR=3.65 vs. 0.83, P < .0001).

Fifty-two of 54 patients stopped full-dose prophylaxis and didn’t return to it. Mean unadjusted annualized FIX use dropped by 97% overall from the lead-in period to months 13-18 (257,338.8 vs. 8,486.6 IU/year/participant).

Thirty-seven participants experienced 92 treatment-related adverse events such as abnormal alanine aminotransferase (16.7%), headache (14.8%), influenza-like illness (13.0%), infusion-related infection (13.0%), and abnormal aspartate aminotransferase (9.3). Researchers determined 74 (80.4%) of the adverse effects were mild.

“Transaminase increases were reported, and corticosteroids were required in nine participants, but the mean duration of corticosteroids, including taper, was only 79 days,” Dr. Miesbach said.

“There was no prophylactic use of steroids in this study. FIX expression was maintained. One death was found to be unrelated to study treatment. One case of hepatocellular carcinoma, which has been reported in detail previously, was reported. But after detailed molecular analysis, this was found to be unrelated to study treatment,” he noted.

Quality of life scores improved by 21.5%-28.78%. The P values, ranging from < .0001 to .0036, were considered to be “nominally significant” due to analysis limitations.
 

A ‘one and done’ treatment

While the trial is expected to continue until 2025, no further treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec was given. “Gene therapy is a ‘one and done’ treatment,” Dr. Miesbach said. “According to our current knowledge, it cannot be repeated.”

No information about the expected cost of the treatment is available. CSL Behring, which licensed global rights for the gene therapy from developer uniQure, is expected to seek Food and Drug Administration approval this year.

The trial was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Miesbach and other study authors report various disclosures including support from CSL Behring and uniQure. Some authors are employees of CSL Behring and uniQure.

Nearly all patients treated with a one-time gene therapy shot for hemophilia B (HB) were able to discontinue full-dose bleeding prophylaxis, a new industry-funded phase 3 study finds, and annual bleed rates (ABR) fell by 64% after the lead-in period.

The report on the gene therapy treatment, known as etranacogene dezaparvovec (EtranaDez), was released at the Feb. 2-4, 2022, annual meeting of the European Association of Hemophilia and Allied Disorders.

In an interview, study lead author Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Frankfurt in Germany, touted the decline in ABR. “This statistically significant reduction not only met the primary endpoint for non-inferiority but also demonstrates clear superiority of etranacogene dezaparvovec to prophylaxis in the lead-in period,” he said. “In addition to that, the quality of life improved significantly, [and] there was an overall favorable safety profile.”

Hemophilia B is much rarer than hemophilia A. In a 2020 report, the CDC estimated that type A accounted for less than a quarter of the 29,761-32,985 cases of U.S. males who had hemophilia from 2012-2018. The rest had type B. Most of the males with hemophilia were white (81.2%) and fairly young (just 20.6% were older than 39).
 

High adherence and high prices

Factor IX (FIX) replacement therapy aims to boost levels of the blood-clotting protein in patients with severe hepatitis B. However, the intravenous prophylactic treatment requires a “high level of adherence” due to the need for self-administration several times a week, Dr. Miesbach said, adding that the treatment does not reliably prevent bleeding and joint destruction.

Also, the price of FIX replacement therapy in the United States is exorbitant, costing an average of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.

The gene therapy treatment, formerly known as AMT-061, “consists of a functional FIX gene with higher activity than the wild-type FIX (Padua variant), together with an AAV (AAV5),” Dr. Miesbach said. “AAV 5 is a vector with high liver tropism to transduce the liver cells and lead to the production of the functional FIX gene there.”

For the new open-label, single-dose, single-arm HOPE-B study, researchers treated 54 adult men with severe or moderately severe HB (FIX ≤2%), 31 with and 23 without preexisting AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. The average age was 41.5, 81.5% had severe cases (FIX<1%), and 25.9% had no bleeds at lead-in.

The participants began 12 months of treatment with gene therapy following a 6-month lead-in period of FIX prophylaxis. All but one completed follow-up.

“Mean FIX activity was 39.0 IU/dL (±18.7; 8.2, 97.1) (standard deviation; min, max) at month 6 and 36.9 IU/dL (±21.4; 4.5, 122.9) at month 18,” the researchers reported. ABR dropped by 64% from the lead-in period to the 12-month treatment period (4.19 vs. 1.51, P = .0002), and FIX-treated bleeds fell by 77% (ABR=3.65 vs. 0.83, P < .0001).

Fifty-two of 54 patients stopped full-dose prophylaxis and didn’t return to it. Mean unadjusted annualized FIX use dropped by 97% overall from the lead-in period to months 13-18 (257,338.8 vs. 8,486.6 IU/year/participant).

Thirty-seven participants experienced 92 treatment-related adverse events such as abnormal alanine aminotransferase (16.7%), headache (14.8%), influenza-like illness (13.0%), infusion-related infection (13.0%), and abnormal aspartate aminotransferase (9.3). Researchers determined 74 (80.4%) of the adverse effects were mild.

“Transaminase increases were reported, and corticosteroids were required in nine participants, but the mean duration of corticosteroids, including taper, was only 79 days,” Dr. Miesbach said.

“There was no prophylactic use of steroids in this study. FIX expression was maintained. One death was found to be unrelated to study treatment. One case of hepatocellular carcinoma, which has been reported in detail previously, was reported. But after detailed molecular analysis, this was found to be unrelated to study treatment,” he noted.

Quality of life scores improved by 21.5%-28.78%. The P values, ranging from < .0001 to .0036, were considered to be “nominally significant” due to analysis limitations.
 

A ‘one and done’ treatment

While the trial is expected to continue until 2025, no further treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec was given. “Gene therapy is a ‘one and done’ treatment,” Dr. Miesbach said. “According to our current knowledge, it cannot be repeated.”

No information about the expected cost of the treatment is available. CSL Behring, which licensed global rights for the gene therapy from developer uniQure, is expected to seek Food and Drug Administration approval this year.

The trial was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Miesbach and other study authors report various disclosures including support from CSL Behring and uniQure. Some authors are employees of CSL Behring and uniQure.

Nearly all patients treated with a one-time gene therapy shot for hemophilia B (HB) were able to discontinue full-dose bleeding prophylaxis, a new industry-funded phase 3 study finds, and annual bleed rates (ABR) fell by 64% after the lead-in period.

The report on the gene therapy treatment, known as etranacogene dezaparvovec (EtranaDez), was released at the Feb. 2-4, 2022, annual meeting of the European Association of Hemophilia and Allied Disorders.

In an interview, study lead author Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Frankfurt in Germany, touted the decline in ABR. “This statistically significant reduction not only met the primary endpoint for non-inferiority but also demonstrates clear superiority of etranacogene dezaparvovec to prophylaxis in the lead-in period,” he said. “In addition to that, the quality of life improved significantly, [and] there was an overall favorable safety profile.”

Hemophilia B is much rarer than hemophilia A. In a 2020 report, the CDC estimated that type A accounted for less than a quarter of the 29,761-32,985 cases of U.S. males who had hemophilia from 2012-2018. The rest had type B. Most of the males with hemophilia were white (81.2%) and fairly young (just 20.6% were older than 39).
 

High adherence and high prices

Factor IX (FIX) replacement therapy aims to boost levels of the blood-clotting protein in patients with severe hepatitis B. However, the intravenous prophylactic treatment requires a “high level of adherence” due to the need for self-administration several times a week, Dr. Miesbach said, adding that the treatment does not reliably prevent bleeding and joint destruction.

Also, the price of FIX replacement therapy in the United States is exorbitant, costing an average of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.

The gene therapy treatment, formerly known as AMT-061, “consists of a functional FIX gene with higher activity than the wild-type FIX (Padua variant), together with an AAV (AAV5),” Dr. Miesbach said. “AAV 5 is a vector with high liver tropism to transduce the liver cells and lead to the production of the functional FIX gene there.”

For the new open-label, single-dose, single-arm HOPE-B study, researchers treated 54 adult men with severe or moderately severe HB (FIX ≤2%), 31 with and 23 without preexisting AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. The average age was 41.5, 81.5% had severe cases (FIX<1%), and 25.9% had no bleeds at lead-in.

The participants began 12 months of treatment with gene therapy following a 6-month lead-in period of FIX prophylaxis. All but one completed follow-up.

“Mean FIX activity was 39.0 IU/dL (±18.7; 8.2, 97.1) (standard deviation; min, max) at month 6 and 36.9 IU/dL (±21.4; 4.5, 122.9) at month 18,” the researchers reported. ABR dropped by 64% from the lead-in period to the 12-month treatment period (4.19 vs. 1.51, P = .0002), and FIX-treated bleeds fell by 77% (ABR=3.65 vs. 0.83, P < .0001).

Fifty-two of 54 patients stopped full-dose prophylaxis and didn’t return to it. Mean unadjusted annualized FIX use dropped by 97% overall from the lead-in period to months 13-18 (257,338.8 vs. 8,486.6 IU/year/participant).

Thirty-seven participants experienced 92 treatment-related adverse events such as abnormal alanine aminotransferase (16.7%), headache (14.8%), influenza-like illness (13.0%), infusion-related infection (13.0%), and abnormal aspartate aminotransferase (9.3). Researchers determined 74 (80.4%) of the adverse effects were mild.

“Transaminase increases were reported, and corticosteroids were required in nine participants, but the mean duration of corticosteroids, including taper, was only 79 days,” Dr. Miesbach said.

“There was no prophylactic use of steroids in this study. FIX expression was maintained. One death was found to be unrelated to study treatment. One case of hepatocellular carcinoma, which has been reported in detail previously, was reported. But after detailed molecular analysis, this was found to be unrelated to study treatment,” he noted.

Quality of life scores improved by 21.5%-28.78%. The P values, ranging from < .0001 to .0036, were considered to be “nominally significant” due to analysis limitations.
 

A ‘one and done’ treatment

While the trial is expected to continue until 2025, no further treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec was given. “Gene therapy is a ‘one and done’ treatment,” Dr. Miesbach said. “According to our current knowledge, it cannot be repeated.”

No information about the expected cost of the treatment is available. CSL Behring, which licensed global rights for the gene therapy from developer uniQure, is expected to seek Food and Drug Administration approval this year.

The trial was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Miesbach and other study authors report various disclosures including support from CSL Behring and uniQure. Some authors are employees of CSL Behring and uniQure.

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.

“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.

The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*

According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”

Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).

Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”

The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).

There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).

Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)

Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”

The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.

In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”

He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”

In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.

There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”

Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.

Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.

A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.

“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.

The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*

According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”

Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).

Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”

The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).

There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).

Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)

Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”

The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.

In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”

He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”

In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.

There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”

Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.

Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.

A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.

“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.

The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*

According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”

Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).

Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”

The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).

There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).

Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)

Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”

The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.

In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”

He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”

In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.

There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”

Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.

Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.

A new, augmented autism-screening strategy boosted the number of boys diagnosed with the condition, especially Spanish speakers, a new study finds. The research was published in JAMA Pediatrics

The number of diagnoses in girls didn’t budge significantly, however, surprising researchers. Still, the findings suggest that “multistage screening and appropriate access to diagnostic services can really move the needle on the early detection of autism and reducing disparities in autism diagnosis and detection,” said lead author R. Christopher Sheldrick, PhD, a Boston University research associate professor of health law, policy, and management, in an interview.

While early intervention is considered crucial, U.S. research suggests that several groups of children – the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and non-English speakers – are more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) later in life. “They have much lower access to appropriate services, both to get kids diagnosed and to get the kinds of interventions that can be helpful for families,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Our study is about trying to close the gap around diagnosis, the first step.”

For the new study, the researchers implemented an intervention strategy in Massachusetts at three Early Intervention (EI) programs, which provide autism screening to children who are referred by pediatricians or parents. The researchers then tracked the programs, all in Boston, and nine comparison programs from the greater Boston area from 2012 to 2018.

Overall, 33,326 children were assessed, all aged 14-36 months. Those at the intervention programs were chosen because they had high levels of poverty. Children at those programs were more likely to be Black than those at the comparison programs (30.7% vs. 12.2%), to be Spanish speakers (28.9% vs. 12.5%), and to be in the lowest household income bracket (66.9% vs. 54.2%). In both groups, about 64% of the children were male.

The intervention strategy aimed to reduce the reliance on screening tests. Instead, the study authors write, “our protocol emphasizes ASD screening as a process that includes clinician and parent decision-making.”

As Dr. Sheldrick explained, parents and specialists observe children together “and then decide whether it’s worth taking the next step, which is a full diagnostic assessment with a licensed professional.” According to the study, either the parent(s) or the specialists could make the referral for a full, university-based assessment.

The goal was to help specialists use their professional judgment more, he said, and refer children who don’t show signs of ASD via a screening instrument but still spark concern, he said. “We’re really trying to create a system in which the screening tools support professional judgment, but don’t really replace it.”

After weighting, the researchers found that diagnoses of ASD were more common in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (incidence rate ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.1, P < .001), accounting for an extra 8.1 diagnoses per 1,000 per quarter. Among Spanish-speaking families only, diagnoses grew even more in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3; P < .001), representing 15.4 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter.

There was also an increase in diagnoses among boys in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3; P < .001), accounting for 14.8 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter. However, there was no statistically significant increase in diagnosis among girls (IRR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7; P = .84).

The finding about girls surprised the researchers. “The program was highly effective for boys, but really didn’t have any effect for girls,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Even though autism is considered to be more common in boys, there are questions about whether it’s underidentified in girls. These data would be consistent with that view. So there’s work to do to be able to recognize how a young girl with autism might present and how you might note that in a sensitive way and then respond appropriately.”

The overall message of the study is “that screening with appropriate supports can make a difference,” he said. However, he acknowledged that the extra cost of the program is unclear. “We did not systematically collect data on cost,” he said, noting that the funding for the study paid for both the intervention and the analysis.

For now, he said, researchers are following the children in the study to see if they were able to access treatment services. Some of the investigators are also taking part in a randomized study to evaluate an intervention in children with social communication disorders, he said.

In an accompanying commentary, three pediatric specialists noted that the study is the first to analyze ASD screening in EI. “This study supports the notion of ASD screening as an iterative, multistep process that optimally involves multiple community stakeholders with varying levels of developmental expertise who have done the work to build trust with families,” write pediatrician Kate E. Wallis, MD, MPH, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, graduate student Monica M. Abdul-Chani, MA, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and pediatrician Katharine E. Zuckerman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

In regard to disparities in diagnosis in Spanish-speaking families, the commentary authors write that “locating a greater proportion of the ASD identification process in EI, which families are already familiar with, has no to low cost for families, and is likely geographically closer for families, can reduce structural barriers to identification.”

They add that the emphasis within Latino families on the “building of warm and caring relationships with others based on mutual trust and respect” can allow EI specialists to “develop relationships with families who may be afraid or skeptical of sharing what could be considered personal details of their family life.”

The commentary authors also note that “it remains all too common for language delays to be attributed to child exposure to two languages, even though data do not support this attribution. Bilingual EI staff can help to demystify this perpetual myth and better estimate a child’s communication and social skills in both languages as they communicate and play.”

The study was funded by grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Sheldrick is cocreator of the Parent’s Observations of Social Interaction (POSI), which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study. He conducts research related to this instrument but receives no royalties. He reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Alice S. Carter, PhD, is cocreator of the POSI but receives no royalties. She is also cocreator of the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment, which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study, and receives royalties on the sale of the instrument. She reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Study coauthor Thomas I. Mackie, PhD, MPH, reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. Study coauthor Noah Hoch reports grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. No other disclosures from study authors are reported. Dr. Zuckerman reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health and consulting fees from H2N related to autism. The other commentary authors report no disclosures.

A new, augmented autism-screening strategy boosted the number of boys diagnosed with the condition, especially Spanish speakers, a new study finds. The research was published in JAMA Pediatrics

The number of diagnoses in girls didn’t budge significantly, however, surprising researchers. Still, the findings suggest that “multistage screening and appropriate access to diagnostic services can really move the needle on the early detection of autism and reducing disparities in autism diagnosis and detection,” said lead author R. Christopher Sheldrick, PhD, a Boston University research associate professor of health law, policy, and management, in an interview.

While early intervention is considered crucial, U.S. research suggests that several groups of children – the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and non-English speakers – are more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) later in life. “They have much lower access to appropriate services, both to get kids diagnosed and to get the kinds of interventions that can be helpful for families,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Our study is about trying to close the gap around diagnosis, the first step.”

For the new study, the researchers implemented an intervention strategy in Massachusetts at three Early Intervention (EI) programs, which provide autism screening to children who are referred by pediatricians or parents. The researchers then tracked the programs, all in Boston, and nine comparison programs from the greater Boston area from 2012 to 2018.

Overall, 33,326 children were assessed, all aged 14-36 months. Those at the intervention programs were chosen because they had high levels of poverty. Children at those programs were more likely to be Black than those at the comparison programs (30.7% vs. 12.2%), to be Spanish speakers (28.9% vs. 12.5%), and to be in the lowest household income bracket (66.9% vs. 54.2%). In both groups, about 64% of the children were male.

The intervention strategy aimed to reduce the reliance on screening tests. Instead, the study authors write, “our protocol emphasizes ASD screening as a process that includes clinician and parent decision-making.”

As Dr. Sheldrick explained, parents and specialists observe children together “and then decide whether it’s worth taking the next step, which is a full diagnostic assessment with a licensed professional.” According to the study, either the parent(s) or the specialists could make the referral for a full, university-based assessment.

The goal was to help specialists use their professional judgment more, he said, and refer children who don’t show signs of ASD via a screening instrument but still spark concern, he said. “We’re really trying to create a system in which the screening tools support professional judgment, but don’t really replace it.”

After weighting, the researchers found that diagnoses of ASD were more common in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (incidence rate ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.1, P < .001), accounting for an extra 8.1 diagnoses per 1,000 per quarter. Among Spanish-speaking families only, diagnoses grew even more in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3; P < .001), representing 15.4 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter.

There was also an increase in diagnoses among boys in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3; P < .001), accounting for 14.8 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter. However, there was no statistically significant increase in diagnosis among girls (IRR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7; P = .84).

The finding about girls surprised the researchers. “The program was highly effective for boys, but really didn’t have any effect for girls,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Even though autism is considered to be more common in boys, there are questions about whether it’s underidentified in girls. These data would be consistent with that view. So there’s work to do to be able to recognize how a young girl with autism might present and how you might note that in a sensitive way and then respond appropriately.”

The overall message of the study is “that screening with appropriate supports can make a difference,” he said. However, he acknowledged that the extra cost of the program is unclear. “We did not systematically collect data on cost,” he said, noting that the funding for the study paid for both the intervention and the analysis.

For now, he said, researchers are following the children in the study to see if they were able to access treatment services. Some of the investigators are also taking part in a randomized study to evaluate an intervention in children with social communication disorders, he said.

In an accompanying commentary, three pediatric specialists noted that the study is the first to analyze ASD screening in EI. “This study supports the notion of ASD screening as an iterative, multistep process that optimally involves multiple community stakeholders with varying levels of developmental expertise who have done the work to build trust with families,” write pediatrician Kate E. Wallis, MD, MPH, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, graduate student Monica M. Abdul-Chani, MA, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and pediatrician Katharine E. Zuckerman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

In regard to disparities in diagnosis in Spanish-speaking families, the commentary authors write that “locating a greater proportion of the ASD identification process in EI, which families are already familiar with, has no to low cost for families, and is likely geographically closer for families, can reduce structural barriers to identification.”

They add that the emphasis within Latino families on the “building of warm and caring relationships with others based on mutual trust and respect” can allow EI specialists to “develop relationships with families who may be afraid or skeptical of sharing what could be considered personal details of their family life.”

The commentary authors also note that “it remains all too common for language delays to be attributed to child exposure to two languages, even though data do not support this attribution. Bilingual EI staff can help to demystify this perpetual myth and better estimate a child’s communication and social skills in both languages as they communicate and play.”

The study was funded by grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Sheldrick is cocreator of the Parent’s Observations of Social Interaction (POSI), which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study. He conducts research related to this instrument but receives no royalties. He reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Alice S. Carter, PhD, is cocreator of the POSI but receives no royalties. She is also cocreator of the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment, which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study, and receives royalties on the sale of the instrument. She reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Study coauthor Thomas I. Mackie, PhD, MPH, reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. Study coauthor Noah Hoch reports grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. No other disclosures from study authors are reported. Dr. Zuckerman reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health and consulting fees from H2N related to autism. The other commentary authors report no disclosures.

A new, augmented autism-screening strategy boosted the number of boys diagnosed with the condition, especially Spanish speakers, a new study finds. The research was published in JAMA Pediatrics

The number of diagnoses in girls didn’t budge significantly, however, surprising researchers. Still, the findings suggest that “multistage screening and appropriate access to diagnostic services can really move the needle on the early detection of autism and reducing disparities in autism diagnosis and detection,” said lead author R. Christopher Sheldrick, PhD, a Boston University research associate professor of health law, policy, and management, in an interview.

While early intervention is considered crucial, U.S. research suggests that several groups of children – the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and non-English speakers – are more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) later in life. “They have much lower access to appropriate services, both to get kids diagnosed and to get the kinds of interventions that can be helpful for families,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Our study is about trying to close the gap around diagnosis, the first step.”

For the new study, the researchers implemented an intervention strategy in Massachusetts at three Early Intervention (EI) programs, which provide autism screening to children who are referred by pediatricians or parents. The researchers then tracked the programs, all in Boston, and nine comparison programs from the greater Boston area from 2012 to 2018.

Overall, 33,326 children were assessed, all aged 14-36 months. Those at the intervention programs were chosen because they had high levels of poverty. Children at those programs were more likely to be Black than those at the comparison programs (30.7% vs. 12.2%), to be Spanish speakers (28.9% vs. 12.5%), and to be in the lowest household income bracket (66.9% vs. 54.2%). In both groups, about 64% of the children were male.

The intervention strategy aimed to reduce the reliance on screening tests. Instead, the study authors write, “our protocol emphasizes ASD screening as a process that includes clinician and parent decision-making.”

As Dr. Sheldrick explained, parents and specialists observe children together “and then decide whether it’s worth taking the next step, which is a full diagnostic assessment with a licensed professional.” According to the study, either the parent(s) or the specialists could make the referral for a full, university-based assessment.

The goal was to help specialists use their professional judgment more, he said, and refer children who don’t show signs of ASD via a screening instrument but still spark concern, he said. “We’re really trying to create a system in which the screening tools support professional judgment, but don’t really replace it.”

After weighting, the researchers found that diagnoses of ASD were more common in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (incidence rate ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.1, P < .001), accounting for an extra 8.1 diagnoses per 1,000 per quarter. Among Spanish-speaking families only, diagnoses grew even more in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3; P < .001), representing 15.4 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter.

There was also an increase in diagnoses among boys in the intervention sites vs. comparison sites (IRR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3; P < .001), accounting for 14.8 additional diagnoses per 1,000 children per quarter. However, there was no statistically significant increase in diagnosis among girls (IRR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7; P = .84).

The finding about girls surprised the researchers. “The program was highly effective for boys, but really didn’t have any effect for girls,” Dr. Sheldrick said. “Even though autism is considered to be more common in boys, there are questions about whether it’s underidentified in girls. These data would be consistent with that view. So there’s work to do to be able to recognize how a young girl with autism might present and how you might note that in a sensitive way and then respond appropriately.”

The overall message of the study is “that screening with appropriate supports can make a difference,” he said. However, he acknowledged that the extra cost of the program is unclear. “We did not systematically collect data on cost,” he said, noting that the funding for the study paid for both the intervention and the analysis.

For now, he said, researchers are following the children in the study to see if they were able to access treatment services. Some of the investigators are also taking part in a randomized study to evaluate an intervention in children with social communication disorders, he said.

In an accompanying commentary, three pediatric specialists noted that the study is the first to analyze ASD screening in EI. “This study supports the notion of ASD screening as an iterative, multistep process that optimally involves multiple community stakeholders with varying levels of developmental expertise who have done the work to build trust with families,” write pediatrician Kate E. Wallis, MD, MPH, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, graduate student Monica M. Abdul-Chani, MA, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and pediatrician Katharine E. Zuckerman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

In regard to disparities in diagnosis in Spanish-speaking families, the commentary authors write that “locating a greater proportion of the ASD identification process in EI, which families are already familiar with, has no to low cost for families, and is likely geographically closer for families, can reduce structural barriers to identification.”

They add that the emphasis within Latino families on the “building of warm and caring relationships with others based on mutual trust and respect” can allow EI specialists to “develop relationships with families who may be afraid or skeptical of sharing what could be considered personal details of their family life.”

The commentary authors also note that “it remains all too common for language delays to be attributed to child exposure to two languages, even though data do not support this attribution. Bilingual EI staff can help to demystify this perpetual myth and better estimate a child’s communication and social skills in both languages as they communicate and play.”

The study was funded by grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Sheldrick is cocreator of the Parent’s Observations of Social Interaction (POSI), which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study. He conducts research related to this instrument but receives no royalties. He reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Alice S. Carter, PhD, is cocreator of the POSI but receives no royalties. She is also cocreator of the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment, which is one of the two first-stage screeners used in this study, and receives royalties on the sale of the instrument. She reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Study coauthor Thomas I. Mackie, PhD, MPH, reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. Study coauthor Noah Hoch reports grants from the Health Resources Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health. No other disclosures from study authors are reported. Dr. Zuckerman reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health and consulting fees from H2N related to autism. The other commentary authors report no disclosures.

Mrs. S.’s long-term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prognosis was grim, and she faced a harder time getting through each day. But neither she nor her primary care physician was willing to embrace strategies other than drugs.

“She felt guilty for continuing to smoke, but also expressed a need to smoke to help her deal with her husband’s cancer and eventual death,” recalled Georgia Narsavage, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, professor emerita of nursing at West Virginia University. “Her primary care physician was reluctant to introduce any treatment other than medications because her family was resistant to facing ‘mother dying.’ ”

SDI Productions/E+

But things changed when Mrs. S. was referred to a palliative-care clinical nurse specialist following a hospitalization. “The goal of palliative care is to support quality of life by relieving symptoms and decreasing suffering. She was assisted to improve functioning overall, and home support services were provided,” Dr. Narsavage said. “They allowed her to live at home relatively pain free with decreased dyspnea for 3 more years until her transition to hospice care a few months before death.

It wasn’t quite a happy ending. But it was a happier ending, and one that palliative care (PC) advocates hope will become more common in pulmonary care. They’re working to convince colleagues that PC is neither another word for hospice nor a sign that anyone is giving up on a patient.
 

Underutilized but beneficial

“Palliative care is underutilized in patients with chronic pulmonary disease, and it’s a missed opportunity to potentially alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life,” said Hilary DuBrock, MD, an internist and critical care pulmonologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Chest physicians should know that it’s important to recognize your limitations in addressing all aspects of a chronic disease, and it’s OK to ask for help from a specialty multidisciplinary team of palliative care providers.”

Statistics back up Dr. DuBrock’s perspective about how PC isn’t common in pulmonary care. A 2017 study examined 181,689 U.S. adult patients who had COPD, received oxygen at home, and were hospitalized for exacerbations from 2006-2012. Just 1.7% received PC, although the number grew over the study period.

Another study published in 2017 examined 3,166 patients over the same period with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who were on ventilators. The use of PC is group rose from 2.3% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2012.

More recently, a 2020 meta-analysis examined 19 studies and found that patients with lung cancer were much more likely to receive PC than were those with COPD (odds ratio (OR) = 9.59, P < .001, for hospital-based PC and OR = 8.79, P < .001, for home-based PC).

Patients with lung cancer vs. COPD were also less likely to receive invasive ventilation (OR = .26, P < .001), noninvasive ventilation (OR = .63, P = .009) or CPR (OR = .29, P < .001) or die at a nursing home/long-term care facility (OR = .32, P < .001).

Other studies support PC in COPD: Research in Europe has linked PC in COPD to fewer in-hospital deaths and lower end-of-life expenses. A Canadian study also linked PC to fewer in-hospital deaths in COPD.

Dr. DuBrock said she believes there are a couple reasons why PC isn’t more widely accepted in pulmonology. “There has been little evidence in chronic pulmonary disease regarding the role of PC, and there is a lack of standardized guidelines to help clinicians determine appropriate timing and patient selection for referral,” she said. “There is also a reluctance to refer patients to palliative care since some may think that referral implies that they are giving up on their patients.”

In fact, she said, “if appropriately explained and discussed with patients, PC does not necessarily need to imply to patients that you are giving up on them, but rather that you care enough about them to try to find novel ways to improve their quality of life and relieve their symptoms. Additionally, palliative care can be provided alongside ongoing medical care and treatment of their chronic lung disease.”
 

More than standard care

Another obstacle comes from pulmonologists who claim PC isn’t necessary because they’re handling patient care themselves, said University of Alabama at Birmingham critical care pulmonologist Anand S. Iyer, MD. “They’ll say: ‘I do palliative care, I palliate their breathing. I treat breathlessness and cough, that’s what I do.’ ”

But these symptoms only brush the surface of patient needs, he said. “I don’t think that the average pulmonologist goes beyond that to comprehensive symptom assessment and management of a whole host of symptoms beyond those limited to the lungs – depression, anxiety, fatigue, malnutrition.”

On that latter front, he said, pulmonologists “are really good at having end-of-life conversations at the end of life. We do that every day in the ICU.” Advocates for PC, he said, “want to push that to the clinic a year or two earlier.”
 

Timing and use of PC

When should pulmonologists call in a PC team? Specialists recommend early consultations, even right after a pulmonary disease is diagnosed. “When a pulmonologist diagnoses a condition as a serious illness – especially chronic pulmonary disease – a consultation with a palliative care physician or advanced practice registered nurse” can help assess the need for care and the best time to introduce palliative care to the patient and family “to provide relief and enhance quality of life,” West Virginia University’s Dr. Narsavage said. “Initial diagnosis is not too early to think about the trajectory.

Dr. Iyer agreed that early PC consultation is key. “We’re talking about comprehensive support for the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of patients and their families. It can grow as needs of patients become more severe.”

For her part, Dr. DuBrock urged colleagues to focus on patient experiences. “The exact timing of when to refer patients with pulmonary disease is not well established,” she said. “Thus, it’s important to take cues from our patients. If they are experiencing significant symptom burden or impaired quality of life or having difficulty coping with their lung disease, then it may be helpful to call in palliative care to address these issues alongside education and discussion with the patient about the role of palliative care to address their unmet needs.”

As an example, Dr. DuBrock spoke of one of her own patients who has pulmonary hypertension (PH), connective tissue disease, and interstitial lung disease. “Her hypertension was relatively well controlled, but she was still quite symptomatic as well as depressed and having difficulty sleeping. I struggled with wanting to help her feel better but I also recognized that more PH therapy wasn’t necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dubrock said. “After some discussions, I referred her to palliative care, and they were extremely helpful with addressing her symptoms with a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy and also addressing some of her underlying concerns and fears regarding her prognosis and issues related to advance-care planning. Social work was also helpful with addressing some of her financial concerns. I continue to see her on regular basis and treat her PH, but her overall quality of life, sleep, and mood have improved substantially.”
 

First steps

According to specialists, the first step in the PC process with patients is to make sure they understand their conditions, their prognoses, and the role of palliative care itself.

Kathleen Oare Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor of nursing at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who specializes in PC in pulmonary disease, remembers taking the histories of patients with grim prognoses and “their look on their face was like, ‘I just have a common cold.’ ” In other cases, she said, patients may fear they’ll die immediately when they have 3-5 years to live.

Dr. Lindell, who has worked at a specialty center for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), emphasized the importance of speaking in layperson terms that patients understand, such as referring to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as “unknown lung scarring.” She also said it’s crucial to be up front about their prognoses.

As for patient understanding of PC, she said, “people think it’s hospice that they’re giving. Palliative care is neither. Instead, it helps to address symptom management, I always tell patients, ‘You’ll be scared, you’ll have a cough. There are medicines and nonpharmacological therapies [that can help], and that’s what palliative care does.’ ”

Keith Swetz, MD, an internist and palliative care specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that a concise discussion of prognosis is vital. “What do they know about their illness, and what do they understand about what will happen when things get worse?” he said.

“With pulmonary disease, they may be looking at months to years punctuated with a lot of ICU admissions, trips to the hospital, symptom burden, and decline in function. Some will want aggressive treatment and say they’re fine being in the hospital, while others will say being comfortable at home is more important.”

Dr. Swetz’s patients commonly have COPD, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or PH, and some may have concurrent heart failure. While their prognoses may be poor, he said, discussion about their wishes probably aren’t happening outside of the PC setting.

Or if they are happening, he said, they’re lower quality, boiling down complicated care questions to “Do you want us to do everything yes, or no?

“A lot of it has to do with time,” he said. “Clinicians are busy, they might have a full ICU or pulmonary clinic with 15 minutes to see patients. Sitting down and talking about these things isn’t something that’s prioritized or fits into the work stream very well, and often it hasn’t been reimbursed.”

There typically aren’t insurance hassles regarding referrals for PC, Dr. Iyer said, although finding available specialists may be challenging. A 2019 study projected a wave of retirements of older PC physicians over the next few years, and the ratio of patients to PC specialists may not return to 2019 levels for decades. Rural areas are especially shorthanded. But telehealth may improve access, Dr. Iyer said.

What’s next? Specialists are trying to pin down guidelines for when PC consultation is appropriate in pulmonary disease.
 

Triggers to PC

Dr. Iyer, Dr. Lindell and others authored a 2021 report in the journal CHEST that offers guidance about triggers for PC consultation. The authors cited four “levers” or triggers that are important: worsening lung function, severe symptoms or high burden of care needs, poor prognosis, and frequent severe exacerbations.

“The overall point here is that integrating palliative care into COPD practice isn’t an on-off switch; rather, it should be based upon multiple factors and can evolve over time,” they wrote.

They noted that, “patients with COPD accept palliative care as early as moderate COPD (FEV₁ < 80%), so patients may be ready sooner than clinicians think.”

They added that, “if prognosis is such a concern that a clinician is considering referral for lung transplant evaluation, then concurrent referral to specialist palliative care should be routine practice.

Finally, frequent severe exacerbations, i.e. those that require hospitalization or an emergency room visit, carry a high risk for posthospitalization mortality and are ideal inflection points in the illness trajectory of COPD.”

In the big picture, the authors contend, “palliative care should be integrated early and concurrently with COPD-directed therapies, and its intensity should increase over time as symptoms, needs, and exacerbations worsen approaching EOL [end of life].”

None of the interviewees or other authors reported having any relevant conflicts for this story.

Mrs. S.’s long-term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prognosis was grim, and she faced a harder time getting through each day. But neither she nor her primary care physician was willing to embrace strategies other than drugs.

“She felt guilty for continuing to smoke, but also expressed a need to smoke to help her deal with her husband’s cancer and eventual death,” recalled Georgia Narsavage, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, professor emerita of nursing at West Virginia University. “Her primary care physician was reluctant to introduce any treatment other than medications because her family was resistant to facing ‘mother dying.’ ”

SDI Productions/E+

But things changed when Mrs. S. was referred to a palliative-care clinical nurse specialist following a hospitalization. “The goal of palliative care is to support quality of life by relieving symptoms and decreasing suffering. She was assisted to improve functioning overall, and home support services were provided,” Dr. Narsavage said. “They allowed her to live at home relatively pain free with decreased dyspnea for 3 more years until her transition to hospice care a few months before death.

It wasn’t quite a happy ending. But it was a happier ending, and one that palliative care (PC) advocates hope will become more common in pulmonary care. They’re working to convince colleagues that PC is neither another word for hospice nor a sign that anyone is giving up on a patient.
 

Underutilized but beneficial

“Palliative care is underutilized in patients with chronic pulmonary disease, and it’s a missed opportunity to potentially alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life,” said Hilary DuBrock, MD, an internist and critical care pulmonologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Chest physicians should know that it’s important to recognize your limitations in addressing all aspects of a chronic disease, and it’s OK to ask for help from a specialty multidisciplinary team of palliative care providers.”

Statistics back up Dr. DuBrock’s perspective about how PC isn’t common in pulmonary care. A 2017 study examined 181,689 U.S. adult patients who had COPD, received oxygen at home, and were hospitalized for exacerbations from 2006-2012. Just 1.7% received PC, although the number grew over the study period.

Another study published in 2017 examined 3,166 patients over the same period with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who were on ventilators. The use of PC is group rose from 2.3% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2012.

More recently, a 2020 meta-analysis examined 19 studies and found that patients with lung cancer were much more likely to receive PC than were those with COPD (odds ratio (OR) = 9.59, P < .001, for hospital-based PC and OR = 8.79, P < .001, for home-based PC).

Patients with lung cancer vs. COPD were also less likely to receive invasive ventilation (OR = .26, P < .001), noninvasive ventilation (OR = .63, P = .009) or CPR (OR = .29, P < .001) or die at a nursing home/long-term care facility (OR = .32, P < .001).

Other studies support PC in COPD: Research in Europe has linked PC in COPD to fewer in-hospital deaths and lower end-of-life expenses. A Canadian study also linked PC to fewer in-hospital deaths in COPD.

Dr. DuBrock said she believes there are a couple reasons why PC isn’t more widely accepted in pulmonology. “There has been little evidence in chronic pulmonary disease regarding the role of PC, and there is a lack of standardized guidelines to help clinicians determine appropriate timing and patient selection for referral,” she said. “There is also a reluctance to refer patients to palliative care since some may think that referral implies that they are giving up on their patients.”

In fact, she said, “if appropriately explained and discussed with patients, PC does not necessarily need to imply to patients that you are giving up on them, but rather that you care enough about them to try to find novel ways to improve their quality of life and relieve their symptoms. Additionally, palliative care can be provided alongside ongoing medical care and treatment of their chronic lung disease.”
 

More than standard care

Another obstacle comes from pulmonologists who claim PC isn’t necessary because they’re handling patient care themselves, said University of Alabama at Birmingham critical care pulmonologist Anand S. Iyer, MD. “They’ll say: ‘I do palliative care, I palliate their breathing. I treat breathlessness and cough, that’s what I do.’ ”

But these symptoms only brush the surface of patient needs, he said. “I don’t think that the average pulmonologist goes beyond that to comprehensive symptom assessment and management of a whole host of symptoms beyond those limited to the lungs – depression, anxiety, fatigue, malnutrition.”

On that latter front, he said, pulmonologists “are really good at having end-of-life conversations at the end of life. We do that every day in the ICU.” Advocates for PC, he said, “want to push that to the clinic a year or two earlier.”
 

Timing and use of PC

When should pulmonologists call in a PC team? Specialists recommend early consultations, even right after a pulmonary disease is diagnosed. “When a pulmonologist diagnoses a condition as a serious illness – especially chronic pulmonary disease – a consultation with a palliative care physician or advanced practice registered nurse” can help assess the need for care and the best time to introduce palliative care to the patient and family “to provide relief and enhance quality of life,” West Virginia University’s Dr. Narsavage said. “Initial diagnosis is not too early to think about the trajectory.

Dr. Iyer agreed that early PC consultation is key. “We’re talking about comprehensive support for the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of patients and their families. It can grow as needs of patients become more severe.”

For her part, Dr. DuBrock urged colleagues to focus on patient experiences. “The exact timing of when to refer patients with pulmonary disease is not well established,” she said. “Thus, it’s important to take cues from our patients. If they are experiencing significant symptom burden or impaired quality of life or having difficulty coping with their lung disease, then it may be helpful to call in palliative care to address these issues alongside education and discussion with the patient about the role of palliative care to address their unmet needs.”

As an example, Dr. DuBrock spoke of one of her own patients who has pulmonary hypertension (PH), connective tissue disease, and interstitial lung disease. “Her hypertension was relatively well controlled, but she was still quite symptomatic as well as depressed and having difficulty sleeping. I struggled with wanting to help her feel better but I also recognized that more PH therapy wasn’t necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dubrock said. “After some discussions, I referred her to palliative care, and they were extremely helpful with addressing her symptoms with a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy and also addressing some of her underlying concerns and fears regarding her prognosis and issues related to advance-care planning. Social work was also helpful with addressing some of her financial concerns. I continue to see her on regular basis and treat her PH, but her overall quality of life, sleep, and mood have improved substantially.”
 

First steps

According to specialists, the first step in the PC process with patients is to make sure they understand their conditions, their prognoses, and the role of palliative care itself.

Kathleen Oare Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor of nursing at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who specializes in PC in pulmonary disease, remembers taking the histories of patients with grim prognoses and “their look on their face was like, ‘I just have a common cold.’ ” In other cases, she said, patients may fear they’ll die immediately when they have 3-5 years to live.

Dr. Lindell, who has worked at a specialty center for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), emphasized the importance of speaking in layperson terms that patients understand, such as referring to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as “unknown lung scarring.” She also said it’s crucial to be up front about their prognoses.

As for patient understanding of PC, she said, “people think it’s hospice that they’re giving. Palliative care is neither. Instead, it helps to address symptom management, I always tell patients, ‘You’ll be scared, you’ll have a cough. There are medicines and nonpharmacological therapies [that can help], and that’s what palliative care does.’ ”

Keith Swetz, MD, an internist and palliative care specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that a concise discussion of prognosis is vital. “What do they know about their illness, and what do they understand about what will happen when things get worse?” he said.

“With pulmonary disease, they may be looking at months to years punctuated with a lot of ICU admissions, trips to the hospital, symptom burden, and decline in function. Some will want aggressive treatment and say they’re fine being in the hospital, while others will say being comfortable at home is more important.”

Dr. Swetz’s patients commonly have COPD, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or PH, and some may have concurrent heart failure. While their prognoses may be poor, he said, discussion about their wishes probably aren’t happening outside of the PC setting.

Or if they are happening, he said, they’re lower quality, boiling down complicated care questions to “Do you want us to do everything yes, or no?

“A lot of it has to do with time,” he said. “Clinicians are busy, they might have a full ICU or pulmonary clinic with 15 minutes to see patients. Sitting down and talking about these things isn’t something that’s prioritized or fits into the work stream very well, and often it hasn’t been reimbursed.”

There typically aren’t insurance hassles regarding referrals for PC, Dr. Iyer said, although finding available specialists may be challenging. A 2019 study projected a wave of retirements of older PC physicians over the next few years, and the ratio of patients to PC specialists may not return to 2019 levels for decades. Rural areas are especially shorthanded. But telehealth may improve access, Dr. Iyer said.

What’s next? Specialists are trying to pin down guidelines for when PC consultation is appropriate in pulmonary disease.
 

Triggers to PC

Dr. Iyer, Dr. Lindell and others authored a 2021 report in the journal CHEST that offers guidance about triggers for PC consultation. The authors cited four “levers” or triggers that are important: worsening lung function, severe symptoms or high burden of care needs, poor prognosis, and frequent severe exacerbations.

“The overall point here is that integrating palliative care into COPD practice isn’t an on-off switch; rather, it should be based upon multiple factors and can evolve over time,” they wrote.

They noted that, “patients with COPD accept palliative care as early as moderate COPD (FEV₁ < 80%), so patients may be ready sooner than clinicians think.”

They added that, “if prognosis is such a concern that a clinician is considering referral for lung transplant evaluation, then concurrent referral to specialist palliative care should be routine practice.

Finally, frequent severe exacerbations, i.e. those that require hospitalization or an emergency room visit, carry a high risk for posthospitalization mortality and are ideal inflection points in the illness trajectory of COPD.”

In the big picture, the authors contend, “palliative care should be integrated early and concurrently with COPD-directed therapies, and its intensity should increase over time as symptoms, needs, and exacerbations worsen approaching EOL [end of life].”

None of the interviewees or other authors reported having any relevant conflicts for this story.

Mrs. S.’s long-term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prognosis was grim, and she faced a harder time getting through each day. But neither she nor her primary care physician was willing to embrace strategies other than drugs.

“She felt guilty for continuing to smoke, but also expressed a need to smoke to help her deal with her husband’s cancer and eventual death,” recalled Georgia Narsavage, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, professor emerita of nursing at West Virginia University. “Her primary care physician was reluctant to introduce any treatment other than medications because her family was resistant to facing ‘mother dying.’ ”

SDI Productions/E+

But things changed when Mrs. S. was referred to a palliative-care clinical nurse specialist following a hospitalization. “The goal of palliative care is to support quality of life by relieving symptoms and decreasing suffering. She was assisted to improve functioning overall, and home support services were provided,” Dr. Narsavage said. “They allowed her to live at home relatively pain free with decreased dyspnea for 3 more years until her transition to hospice care a few months before death.

It wasn’t quite a happy ending. But it was a happier ending, and one that palliative care (PC) advocates hope will become more common in pulmonary care. They’re working to convince colleagues that PC is neither another word for hospice nor a sign that anyone is giving up on a patient.
 

Underutilized but beneficial

“Palliative care is underutilized in patients with chronic pulmonary disease, and it’s a missed opportunity to potentially alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life,” said Hilary DuBrock, MD, an internist and critical care pulmonologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Chest physicians should know that it’s important to recognize your limitations in addressing all aspects of a chronic disease, and it’s OK to ask for help from a specialty multidisciplinary team of palliative care providers.”

Statistics back up Dr. DuBrock’s perspective about how PC isn’t common in pulmonary care. A 2017 study examined 181,689 U.S. adult patients who had COPD, received oxygen at home, and were hospitalized for exacerbations from 2006-2012. Just 1.7% received PC, although the number grew over the study period.

Another study published in 2017 examined 3,166 patients over the same period with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who were on ventilators. The use of PC is group rose from 2.3% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2012.

More recently, a 2020 meta-analysis examined 19 studies and found that patients with lung cancer were much more likely to receive PC than were those with COPD (odds ratio (OR) = 9.59, P < .001, for hospital-based PC and OR = 8.79, P < .001, for home-based PC).

Patients with lung cancer vs. COPD were also less likely to receive invasive ventilation (OR = .26, P < .001), noninvasive ventilation (OR = .63, P = .009) or CPR (OR = .29, P < .001) or die at a nursing home/long-term care facility (OR = .32, P < .001).

Other studies support PC in COPD: Research in Europe has linked PC in COPD to fewer in-hospital deaths and lower end-of-life expenses. A Canadian study also linked PC to fewer in-hospital deaths in COPD.

Dr. DuBrock said she believes there are a couple reasons why PC isn’t more widely accepted in pulmonology. “There has been little evidence in chronic pulmonary disease regarding the role of PC, and there is a lack of standardized guidelines to help clinicians determine appropriate timing and patient selection for referral,” she said. “There is also a reluctance to refer patients to palliative care since some may think that referral implies that they are giving up on their patients.”

In fact, she said, “if appropriately explained and discussed with patients, PC does not necessarily need to imply to patients that you are giving up on them, but rather that you care enough about them to try to find novel ways to improve their quality of life and relieve their symptoms. Additionally, palliative care can be provided alongside ongoing medical care and treatment of their chronic lung disease.”
 

More than standard care

Another obstacle comes from pulmonologists who claim PC isn’t necessary because they’re handling patient care themselves, said University of Alabama at Birmingham critical care pulmonologist Anand S. Iyer, MD. “They’ll say: ‘I do palliative care, I palliate their breathing. I treat breathlessness and cough, that’s what I do.’ ”

But these symptoms only brush the surface of patient needs, he said. “I don’t think that the average pulmonologist goes beyond that to comprehensive symptom assessment and management of a whole host of symptoms beyond those limited to the lungs – depression, anxiety, fatigue, malnutrition.”

On that latter front, he said, pulmonologists “are really good at having end-of-life conversations at the end of life. We do that every day in the ICU.” Advocates for PC, he said, “want to push that to the clinic a year or two earlier.”
 

Timing and use of PC

When should pulmonologists call in a PC team? Specialists recommend early consultations, even right after a pulmonary disease is diagnosed. “When a pulmonologist diagnoses a condition as a serious illness – especially chronic pulmonary disease – a consultation with a palliative care physician or advanced practice registered nurse” can help assess the need for care and the best time to introduce palliative care to the patient and family “to provide relief and enhance quality of life,” West Virginia University’s Dr. Narsavage said. “Initial diagnosis is not too early to think about the trajectory.

Dr. Iyer agreed that early PC consultation is key. “We’re talking about comprehensive support for the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of patients and their families. It can grow as needs of patients become more severe.”

For her part, Dr. DuBrock urged colleagues to focus on patient experiences. “The exact timing of when to refer patients with pulmonary disease is not well established,” she said. “Thus, it’s important to take cues from our patients. If they are experiencing significant symptom burden or impaired quality of life or having difficulty coping with their lung disease, then it may be helpful to call in palliative care to address these issues alongside education and discussion with the patient about the role of palliative care to address their unmet needs.”

As an example, Dr. DuBrock spoke of one of her own patients who has pulmonary hypertension (PH), connective tissue disease, and interstitial lung disease. “Her hypertension was relatively well controlled, but she was still quite symptomatic as well as depressed and having difficulty sleeping. I struggled with wanting to help her feel better but I also recognized that more PH therapy wasn’t necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dubrock said. “After some discussions, I referred her to palliative care, and they were extremely helpful with addressing her symptoms with a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy and also addressing some of her underlying concerns and fears regarding her prognosis and issues related to advance-care planning. Social work was also helpful with addressing some of her financial concerns. I continue to see her on regular basis and treat her PH, but her overall quality of life, sleep, and mood have improved substantially.”
 

First steps

According to specialists, the first step in the PC process with patients is to make sure they understand their conditions, their prognoses, and the role of palliative care itself.

Kathleen Oare Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor of nursing at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who specializes in PC in pulmonary disease, remembers taking the histories of patients with grim prognoses and “their look on their face was like, ‘I just have a common cold.’ ” In other cases, she said, patients may fear they’ll die immediately when they have 3-5 years to live.

Dr. Lindell, who has worked at a specialty center for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), emphasized the importance of speaking in layperson terms that patients understand, such as referring to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as “unknown lung scarring.” She also said it’s crucial to be up front about their prognoses.

As for patient understanding of PC, she said, “people think it’s hospice that they’re giving. Palliative care is neither. Instead, it helps to address symptom management, I always tell patients, ‘You’ll be scared, you’ll have a cough. There are medicines and nonpharmacological therapies [that can help], and that’s what palliative care does.’ ”

Keith Swetz, MD, an internist and palliative care specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that a concise discussion of prognosis is vital. “What do they know about their illness, and what do they understand about what will happen when things get worse?” he said.

“With pulmonary disease, they may be looking at months to years punctuated with a lot of ICU admissions, trips to the hospital, symptom burden, and decline in function. Some will want aggressive treatment and say they’re fine being in the hospital, while others will say being comfortable at home is more important.”

Dr. Swetz’s patients commonly have COPD, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or PH, and some may have concurrent heart failure. While their prognoses may be poor, he said, discussion about their wishes probably aren’t happening outside of the PC setting.

Or if they are happening, he said, they’re lower quality, boiling down complicated care questions to “Do you want us to do everything yes, or no?

“A lot of it has to do with time,” he said. “Clinicians are busy, they might have a full ICU or pulmonary clinic with 15 minutes to see patients. Sitting down and talking about these things isn’t something that’s prioritized or fits into the work stream very well, and often it hasn’t been reimbursed.”

There typically aren’t insurance hassles regarding referrals for PC, Dr. Iyer said, although finding available specialists may be challenging. A 2019 study projected a wave of retirements of older PC physicians over the next few years, and the ratio of patients to PC specialists may not return to 2019 levels for decades. Rural areas are especially shorthanded. But telehealth may improve access, Dr. Iyer said.

What’s next? Specialists are trying to pin down guidelines for when PC consultation is appropriate in pulmonary disease.
 

Triggers to PC

Dr. Iyer, Dr. Lindell and others authored a 2021 report in the journal CHEST that offers guidance about triggers for PC consultation. The authors cited four “levers” or triggers that are important: worsening lung function, severe symptoms or high burden of care needs, poor prognosis, and frequent severe exacerbations.

“The overall point here is that integrating palliative care into COPD practice isn’t an on-off switch; rather, it should be based upon multiple factors and can evolve over time,” they wrote.

They noted that, “patients with COPD accept palliative care as early as moderate COPD (FEV₁ < 80%), so patients may be ready sooner than clinicians think.”

They added that, “if prognosis is such a concern that a clinician is considering referral for lung transplant evaluation, then concurrent referral to specialist palliative care should be routine practice.

Finally, frequent severe exacerbations, i.e. those that require hospitalization or an emergency room visit, carry a high risk for posthospitalization mortality and are ideal inflection points in the illness trajectory of COPD.”

In the big picture, the authors contend, “palliative care should be integrated early and concurrently with COPD-directed therapies, and its intensity should increase over time as symptoms, needs, and exacerbations worsen approaching EOL [end of life].”

None of the interviewees or other authors reported having any relevant conflicts for this story.

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.