Randy Dotinga

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- A new era of systemic treatment for bladder cancer has arrived, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and more changes await on the horizon.

“After a historically long dry spell, you're seeing novel drugs and combinations under investigation,” said Elizabeth Henry, MD, of Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. “Our treatment paradigm will almost certainly continue to change.”

There’s a major need for new approaches in bladder cancer, Dr. Henry said. While the median survival for patients with metastatic disease treated has risen, it remains low at about 15 months. And, she said, the 5-year survival rate is about 15% with modern treatments.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is still the first-line treatment, she said, and cisplatin-based combos remain the standard. However, many patients are not eligible to take cisplatin because of factors such as reduced performance status, impaired renal function, peripheral neuropathy, hearing loss and heart failure. “Many patients have renal insufficiency and are platinum ineligible from the get-go,” Dr. Henry said.

In these patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors are an option, but research suggests they may lead to poorer survival in those with PDL1-low tumors. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised their use as first-line treatment only in PDL1-high, cisplatin-ineligible patients or those who can’t undergo chemotherapy, she said.

As second-line therapy after platinum treatment, Dr. Henry said, several drugs targeting the PD1/PDL1 pathway are now FDA-approved with response rates at 15% to 25%; only 1 (pembrolizumab) has level 1 evidence from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Single-agent chemotherapy is an option for patients who have worsened or cannot undergo treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, according to Dr. Henry, response rates are low (about 10%-15%) and there's no prospective or randomized control trial data showing a survival benefit.

What now? Targeted approaches are entering the picture. For example, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, which target a pathway that often mutates in bladder cancer. One drug, erdafitinib (Balversa), received FDA approval earlier this year based on a phase 2 trial data that showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 40%. Dr. Henry cautioned that unusual adverse effects can occur, including hyperphosphatemia (a disorder that boosts phosphate levels), ocular toxicity (which can lead to retinal detachment), and toxicity of the skin and hair.

“Patients need to be closely followed if they're starting this as a targeted drug,” Dr. Henry said.

Anti-Nectin-4 antibody drug conjugate, which targets urothelial carcinomas with uniformly high expression of the Nectin-4 cell surface marker, also is showing promise. Recent research suggests a “remarkable” ORR of 42% and nearly 8 months duration of response, she said.

Adverse effects include rash, peripheral neuropathy, and hyperglycemia. “Overall, this is thought to be a relatively well-tolerated therapy,” she said.

In terms of other advances, “we are moving closer to an era of molecular subtype-specific therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Henry said, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends early molecular testing in stage IIIB/IV urothelial cancer. “It can help facilitate treatment decisions and prevent delays in later lines of therapy, although we're still limited by development of individualized biomarker assays for specific drugs.”

Moving forward, she said, “continued research is needed to learn how to incorporate predictive molecular profiles to optimize treatment selection.”

Dr. Henry reported no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- A new era of systemic treatment for bladder cancer has arrived, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and more changes await on the horizon.

“After a historically long dry spell, you're seeing novel drugs and combinations under investigation,” said Elizabeth Henry, MD, of Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. “Our treatment paradigm will almost certainly continue to change.”

There’s a major need for new approaches in bladder cancer, Dr. Henry said. While the median survival for patients with metastatic disease treated has risen, it remains low at about 15 months. And, she said, the 5-year survival rate is about 15% with modern treatments.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is still the first-line treatment, she said, and cisplatin-based combos remain the standard. However, many patients are not eligible to take cisplatin because of factors such as reduced performance status, impaired renal function, peripheral neuropathy, hearing loss and heart failure. “Many patients have renal insufficiency and are platinum ineligible from the get-go,” Dr. Henry said.

In these patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors are an option, but research suggests they may lead to poorer survival in those with PDL1-low tumors. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised their use as first-line treatment only in PDL1-high, cisplatin-ineligible patients or those who can’t undergo chemotherapy, she said.

As second-line therapy after platinum treatment, Dr. Henry said, several drugs targeting the PD1/PDL1 pathway are now FDA-approved with response rates at 15% to 25%; only 1 (pembrolizumab) has level 1 evidence from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Single-agent chemotherapy is an option for patients who have worsened or cannot undergo treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, according to Dr. Henry, response rates are low (about 10%-15%) and there's no prospective or randomized control trial data showing a survival benefit.

What now? Targeted approaches are entering the picture. For example, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, which target a pathway that often mutates in bladder cancer. One drug, erdafitinib (Balversa), received FDA approval earlier this year based on a phase 2 trial data that showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 40%. Dr. Henry cautioned that unusual adverse effects can occur, including hyperphosphatemia (a disorder that boosts phosphate levels), ocular toxicity (which can lead to retinal detachment), and toxicity of the skin and hair.

“Patients need to be closely followed if they're starting this as a targeted drug,” Dr. Henry said.

Anti-Nectin-4 antibody drug conjugate, which targets urothelial carcinomas with uniformly high expression of the Nectin-4 cell surface marker, also is showing promise. Recent research suggests a “remarkable” ORR of 42% and nearly 8 months duration of response, she said.

Adverse effects include rash, peripheral neuropathy, and hyperglycemia. “Overall, this is thought to be a relatively well-tolerated therapy,” she said.

In terms of other advances, “we are moving closer to an era of molecular subtype-specific therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Henry said, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends early molecular testing in stage IIIB/IV urothelial cancer. “It can help facilitate treatment decisions and prevent delays in later lines of therapy, although we're still limited by development of individualized biomarker assays for specific drugs.”

Moving forward, she said, “continued research is needed to learn how to incorporate predictive molecular profiles to optimize treatment selection.”

Dr. Henry reported no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- A new era of systemic treatment for bladder cancer has arrived, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and more changes await on the horizon.

“After a historically long dry spell, you're seeing novel drugs and combinations under investigation,” said Elizabeth Henry, MD, of Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. “Our treatment paradigm will almost certainly continue to change.”

There’s a major need for new approaches in bladder cancer, Dr. Henry said. While the median survival for patients with metastatic disease treated has risen, it remains low at about 15 months. And, she said, the 5-year survival rate is about 15% with modern treatments.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is still the first-line treatment, she said, and cisplatin-based combos remain the standard. However, many patients are not eligible to take cisplatin because of factors such as reduced performance status, impaired renal function, peripheral neuropathy, hearing loss and heart failure. “Many patients have renal insufficiency and are platinum ineligible from the get-go,” Dr. Henry said.

In these patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors are an option, but research suggests they may lead to poorer survival in those with PDL1-low tumors. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised their use as first-line treatment only in PDL1-high, cisplatin-ineligible patients or those who can’t undergo chemotherapy, she said.

As second-line therapy after platinum treatment, Dr. Henry said, several drugs targeting the PD1/PDL1 pathway are now FDA-approved with response rates at 15% to 25%; only 1 (pembrolizumab) has level 1 evidence from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Single-agent chemotherapy is an option for patients who have worsened or cannot undergo treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, according to Dr. Henry, response rates are low (about 10%-15%) and there's no prospective or randomized control trial data showing a survival benefit.

What now? Targeted approaches are entering the picture. For example, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, which target a pathway that often mutates in bladder cancer. One drug, erdafitinib (Balversa), received FDA approval earlier this year based on a phase 2 trial data that showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 40%. Dr. Henry cautioned that unusual adverse effects can occur, including hyperphosphatemia (a disorder that boosts phosphate levels), ocular toxicity (which can lead to retinal detachment), and toxicity of the skin and hair.

“Patients need to be closely followed if they're starting this as a targeted drug,” Dr. Henry said.

Anti-Nectin-4 antibody drug conjugate, which targets urothelial carcinomas with uniformly high expression of the Nectin-4 cell surface marker, also is showing promise. Recent research suggests a “remarkable” ORR of 42% and nearly 8 months duration of response, she said.

Adverse effects include rash, peripheral neuropathy, and hyperglycemia. “Overall, this is thought to be a relatively well-tolerated therapy,” she said.

In terms of other advances, “we are moving closer to an era of molecular subtype-specific therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Henry said, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends early molecular testing in stage IIIB/IV urothelial cancer. “It can help facilitate treatment decisions and prevent delays in later lines of therapy, although we're still limited by development of individualized biomarker assays for specific drugs.”

Moving forward, she said, “continued research is needed to learn how to incorporate predictive molecular profiles to optimize treatment selection.”

Dr. Henry reported no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Clinical trials should be considered standard of care in oncology, the president of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) declared, and he urged colleagues to bypass obstacles and embrace them in patient care.

Clinical trials help many people, not just those in the studies, as they are indicators of robust oncology programs. “There’s a significant correlation between clinical trial activity [at sites] and improvement in survival in cancer,” said oncologist Mark Klein, MD, of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and University of Minnesota, in a presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of AVAHO.  

But the numbers suggest that the VA has lagged behind on the clinical trial front, Dr. Klein said. He pointed to internal statistics from 2001 to 2003, reported in 2010, which found clinical trial participation rates among men in the VA were lower (0.37%) than those of the national rates (0.74%).

Specifically, the VA and national participation rates were 1.16% and 0.30%, respectively, for colorectal cancer, 0.67% and 0.30% for lung cancer, 0.70% and 0.47% for prostate cancer, 0.52% and 0.74% for myeloma. According to Dr. Klein, lung and prostate cancer account for about half of all cancer diagnoses in the VA.

But the participation rates were much higher among the VA hospitals that took part in clinical trials, he said, at 2% for colorectal cancer, 1.4% for lung cancer, 2.5% for prostate cancer, 18.2% for myeloma and 2.07% overall. These numbers make it clear, he said, that it’s possible to improve: “We can do better.”

Dr. Klein pointed to other numbers that suggest the VA facilities that do participate in clinical trials typically do not take part in more than 1 or 2. In 2016, he said, an analysis found that open interventional trials were in progress at 82 VA facilities. About 35 facilities had little activity with only 1 trial in progress. “It has changed since then, but not dramatically.”

Meanwhile, he said, 2016 numbers also showed that about two-thirds of open interventional trials in the VA only included a single VA site. “We weren’t playing together, having consortia and working as a team.”

There are obstacles to improvement, he said, and fixes will take time. “It probably takes 5, 10-plus years,” he said.

These barriers include:

• Lack of adequate trial offering. Changing regulations is key here;
• Strict eligibility criteria. Easing the criteria and more effective screening are helpful;
• Long distances to travel to cancer clinics. Telemedicine could make a difference on this front;
• Patient concerns about being a “guinea pig.” Patient education can help;
• Provider concerns such as worry about extra work. The VA can work to ease burdens and provide incentives for trial enrollment; and
• High costs. Study sponsors may pay for trial drugs, helping facilities to lower expenses or even reach cost neutrality. 

There are more solutions to boost participation, Dr. Klein said, including education, engagement and partnerships.

On the partnership front, he highlighted NAVIGATE, an interagency consortium of the VA and the National Cancer Institute. This collaboration aims to boost enrollment of VA patients in clinical trials, he said, and there are designated NAVIGATE sites across the country from coast to coast.

A partnership between AVAHO and the National Association of Veterans’ Research and Education Foundations is also boosting clinical trials in VA oncology. Thanks to this partnership, 1 trial has completed accrual, 6 multisite trials are active, and 5 are starting up, according to Dr. Klein.

In the big picture, Dr. Klein said, it’s clear that “we’ve got a lot of barriers in the VA. Anybody who works in the VA knows that. But I’ve seen this meeting grow and grow, and I’ve seen teamwork and partnerships form.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- Clinical trials should be considered standard of care in oncology, the president of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) declared, and he urged colleagues to bypass obstacles and embrace them in patient care.

Clinical trials help many people, not just those in the studies, as they are indicators of robust oncology programs. “There’s a significant correlation between clinical trial activity [at sites] and improvement in survival in cancer,” said oncologist Mark Klein, MD, of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and University of Minnesota, in a presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of AVAHO.  

But the numbers suggest that the VA has lagged behind on the clinical trial front, Dr. Klein said. He pointed to internal statistics from 2001 to 2003, reported in 2010, which found clinical trial participation rates among men in the VA were lower (0.37%) than those of the national rates (0.74%).

Specifically, the VA and national participation rates were 1.16% and 0.30%, respectively, for colorectal cancer, 0.67% and 0.30% for lung cancer, 0.70% and 0.47% for prostate cancer, 0.52% and 0.74% for myeloma. According to Dr. Klein, lung and prostate cancer account for about half of all cancer diagnoses in the VA.

But the participation rates were much higher among the VA hospitals that took part in clinical trials, he said, at 2% for colorectal cancer, 1.4% for lung cancer, 2.5% for prostate cancer, 18.2% for myeloma and 2.07% overall. These numbers make it clear, he said, that it’s possible to improve: “We can do better.”

Dr. Klein pointed to other numbers that suggest the VA facilities that do participate in clinical trials typically do not take part in more than 1 or 2. In 2016, he said, an analysis found that open interventional trials were in progress at 82 VA facilities. About 35 facilities had little activity with only 1 trial in progress. “It has changed since then, but not dramatically.”

Meanwhile, he said, 2016 numbers also showed that about two-thirds of open interventional trials in the VA only included a single VA site. “We weren’t playing together, having consortia and working as a team.”

There are obstacles to improvement, he said, and fixes will take time. “It probably takes 5, 10-plus years,” he said.

These barriers include:

• Lack of adequate trial offering. Changing regulations is key here;
• Strict eligibility criteria. Easing the criteria and more effective screening are helpful;
• Long distances to travel to cancer clinics. Telemedicine could make a difference on this front;
• Patient concerns about being a “guinea pig.” Patient education can help;
• Provider concerns such as worry about extra work. The VA can work to ease burdens and provide incentives for trial enrollment; and
• High costs. Study sponsors may pay for trial drugs, helping facilities to lower expenses or even reach cost neutrality. 

There are more solutions to boost participation, Dr. Klein said, including education, engagement and partnerships.

On the partnership front, he highlighted NAVIGATE, an interagency consortium of the VA and the National Cancer Institute. This collaboration aims to boost enrollment of VA patients in clinical trials, he said, and there are designated NAVIGATE sites across the country from coast to coast.

A partnership between AVAHO and the National Association of Veterans’ Research and Education Foundations is also boosting clinical trials in VA oncology. Thanks to this partnership, 1 trial has completed accrual, 6 multisite trials are active, and 5 are starting up, according to Dr. Klein.

In the big picture, Dr. Klein said, it’s clear that “we’ve got a lot of barriers in the VA. Anybody who works in the VA knows that. But I’ve seen this meeting grow and grow, and I’ve seen teamwork and partnerships form.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- Clinical trials should be considered standard of care in oncology, the president of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) declared, and he urged colleagues to bypass obstacles and embrace them in patient care.

Clinical trials help many people, not just those in the studies, as they are indicators of robust oncology programs. “There’s a significant correlation between clinical trial activity [at sites] and improvement in survival in cancer,” said oncologist Mark Klein, MD, of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and University of Minnesota, in a presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of AVAHO.  

But the numbers suggest that the VA has lagged behind on the clinical trial front, Dr. Klein said. He pointed to internal statistics from 2001 to 2003, reported in 2010, which found clinical trial participation rates among men in the VA were lower (0.37%) than those of the national rates (0.74%).

Specifically, the VA and national participation rates were 1.16% and 0.30%, respectively, for colorectal cancer, 0.67% and 0.30% for lung cancer, 0.70% and 0.47% for prostate cancer, 0.52% and 0.74% for myeloma. According to Dr. Klein, lung and prostate cancer account for about half of all cancer diagnoses in the VA.

But the participation rates were much higher among the VA hospitals that took part in clinical trials, he said, at 2% for colorectal cancer, 1.4% for lung cancer, 2.5% for prostate cancer, 18.2% for myeloma and 2.07% overall. These numbers make it clear, he said, that it’s possible to improve: “We can do better.”

Dr. Klein pointed to other numbers that suggest the VA facilities that do participate in clinical trials typically do not take part in more than 1 or 2. In 2016, he said, an analysis found that open interventional trials were in progress at 82 VA facilities. About 35 facilities had little activity with only 1 trial in progress. “It has changed since then, but not dramatically.”

Meanwhile, he said, 2016 numbers also showed that about two-thirds of open interventional trials in the VA only included a single VA site. “We weren’t playing together, having consortia and working as a team.”

There are obstacles to improvement, he said, and fixes will take time. “It probably takes 5, 10-plus years,” he said.

These barriers include:

• Lack of adequate trial offering. Changing regulations is key here;
• Strict eligibility criteria. Easing the criteria and more effective screening are helpful;
• Long distances to travel to cancer clinics. Telemedicine could make a difference on this front;
• Patient concerns about being a “guinea pig.” Patient education can help;
• Provider concerns such as worry about extra work. The VA can work to ease burdens and provide incentives for trial enrollment; and
• High costs. Study sponsors may pay for trial drugs, helping facilities to lower expenses or even reach cost neutrality. 

There are more solutions to boost participation, Dr. Klein said, including education, engagement and partnerships.

On the partnership front, he highlighted NAVIGATE, an interagency consortium of the VA and the National Cancer Institute. This collaboration aims to boost enrollment of VA patients in clinical trials, he said, and there are designated NAVIGATE sites across the country from coast to coast.

A partnership between AVAHO and the National Association of Veterans’ Research and Education Foundations is also boosting clinical trials in VA oncology. Thanks to this partnership, 1 trial has completed accrual, 6 multisite trials are active, and 5 are starting up, according to Dr. Klein.

In the big picture, Dr. Klein said, it’s clear that “we’ve got a lot of barriers in the VA. Anybody who works in the VA knows that. But I’ve seen this meeting grow and grow, and I’ve seen teamwork and partnerships form.”

Introduce whole milk before lowfat or nonfat milk, avoid fruit juice or limit it to just a few sips a day, and stay away from “toddler milk” and chocolate milk entirely. A coalition of health and nutrition organizations offered all this and more in a new set of sometimes surprising recommendations about beverage consumption in children from birth to age 5 years.

LP7/E+/Getty Images

The recommendations “are based on the best available evidence, combined with sound expert judgment, and provide consistent messages that can be used by a variety of stakeholders to improve the beverage intake patterns of young children,” the report authors wrote. “It is imperative to capitalize on early childhood as a critical window of opportunity during which dietary patterns are both impressionable and capable of setting the stage for lifelong eating behaviors.”

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart Association released their recommendations titled “Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood” in a report published Sept. 18.

The organizations convened expert panels and analyzed research to develop consensus beverage recommendations. Here are some highlights from the report, the writing of which was led by Megan Lott, MPH, RDN, of Healthy Eating Research and Duke Global Health Institute at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

• Breast milk or formula. This is what babies should be drinking for the first year of life.
• Plain drinking water. None is needed in the first 6 months of life. Introduce 0.5-1.0 cups/day over the next 6 months in cups and during meals when solid food is introduced. Then 1-4 cups/day are recommended from age 1-3 years, then 1.5-5 cups by age 4-5 years.
• Plain, pasteurized milk. None during the first year, then 2-3 cups a day of whole milk at age 12-24 months; if weight gain is excessive or family history is positive for obesity, dyslipidemia, or other cardiovascular disease, the pediatrician may recommend skim or lowfat milk at 12-24 months. Then provide up to 2 cups (age 2-3 years) then 2.5 cups (age 4-5 years) per day of skim /fat-free milk or low fat/1% milk
• 100% juice. None until 12 months. Then it can be provided, although whole fruit is preferred. No more than 0.5 cup per day until age 4-5 years, when no more than 0.5-0.75 cup per day is recommended.
• Plant-based milks and non-dairy beverages. None from age 0-1 year. And at ages 1-5 years, they only should be consumed when medically indicated, such as when a child has an allergy or per a preferred diet such as a vegan one. The panel didn’t recommend them as full replacements for dairy milk from age 12-24 months, and it noted that “consumption of these beverages as a full replacement for dairy milk should be undertaken in consultation with a health care provider so that adequate intake of key nutrients commonly obtained from dairy milk can be considered in dietary planning.”
• Other beverages. Flavored milk (like chocolate milk), “toddler milk,” sugar-sweetened drinks (including soft drinks, flavored water, and various fruit drinks), low-calorie sweetened drinks, and caffeinated drinks are not recommended at any age from 0-5 years. Toddler milk products “offer no unique nutritional value beyond what a nutritionally adequate diet provides and may contribute added sugars to the diet and undermine sustained breastfeeding,” the report authors said.

Lillian M. Beard, MD, said in an interview, “Pediatricians and other child health providers have major roles of influence in parents’ choices of foods and beverages for their infants and young children.

“Following these first-ever consensus recommendations on healthy drinks will alter family grocery shopping patterns, and not only improve the overall health of children under age 5 years, but also may improve the health outcomes of everyone in the household.” Dr. Beard is a clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. She was not one of the report authors and was asked to comment on the report.

The report was supported by the Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

SOURCE: Lott M et al. Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood: Recommendations from Key National Health and Nutrition Organizations. Technical Scientific Report. (Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research, 2019).

Introduce whole milk before lowfat or nonfat milk, avoid fruit juice or limit it to just a few sips a day, and stay away from “toddler milk” and chocolate milk entirely. A coalition of health and nutrition organizations offered all this and more in a new set of sometimes surprising recommendations about beverage consumption in children from birth to age 5 years.

LP7/E+/Getty Images

The recommendations “are based on the best available evidence, combined with sound expert judgment, and provide consistent messages that can be used by a variety of stakeholders to improve the beverage intake patterns of young children,” the report authors wrote. “It is imperative to capitalize on early childhood as a critical window of opportunity during which dietary patterns are both impressionable and capable of setting the stage for lifelong eating behaviors.”

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart Association released their recommendations titled “Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood” in a report published Sept. 18.

The organizations convened expert panels and analyzed research to develop consensus beverage recommendations. Here are some highlights from the report, the writing of which was led by Megan Lott, MPH, RDN, of Healthy Eating Research and Duke Global Health Institute at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

• Breast milk or formula. This is what babies should be drinking for the first year of life.
• Plain drinking water. None is needed in the first 6 months of life. Introduce 0.5-1.0 cups/day over the next 6 months in cups and during meals when solid food is introduced. Then 1-4 cups/day are recommended from age 1-3 years, then 1.5-5 cups by age 4-5 years.
• Plain, pasteurized milk. None during the first year, then 2-3 cups a day of whole milk at age 12-24 months; if weight gain is excessive or family history is positive for obesity, dyslipidemia, or other cardiovascular disease, the pediatrician may recommend skim or lowfat milk at 12-24 months. Then provide up to 2 cups (age 2-3 years) then 2.5 cups (age 4-5 years) per day of skim /fat-free milk or low fat/1% milk
• 100% juice. None until 12 months. Then it can be provided, although whole fruit is preferred. No more than 0.5 cup per day until age 4-5 years, when no more than 0.5-0.75 cup per day is recommended.
• Plant-based milks and non-dairy beverages. None from age 0-1 year. And at ages 1-5 years, they only should be consumed when medically indicated, such as when a child has an allergy or per a preferred diet such as a vegan one. The panel didn’t recommend them as full replacements for dairy milk from age 12-24 months, and it noted that “consumption of these beverages as a full replacement for dairy milk should be undertaken in consultation with a health care provider so that adequate intake of key nutrients commonly obtained from dairy milk can be considered in dietary planning.”
• Other beverages. Flavored milk (like chocolate milk), “toddler milk,” sugar-sweetened drinks (including soft drinks, flavored water, and various fruit drinks), low-calorie sweetened drinks, and caffeinated drinks are not recommended at any age from 0-5 years. Toddler milk products “offer no unique nutritional value beyond what a nutritionally adequate diet provides and may contribute added sugars to the diet and undermine sustained breastfeeding,” the report authors said.

Lillian M. Beard, MD, said in an interview, “Pediatricians and other child health providers have major roles of influence in parents’ choices of foods and beverages for their infants and young children.

“Following these first-ever consensus recommendations on healthy drinks will alter family grocery shopping patterns, and not only improve the overall health of children under age 5 years, but also may improve the health outcomes of everyone in the household.” Dr. Beard is a clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. She was not one of the report authors and was asked to comment on the report.

The report was supported by the Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

SOURCE: Lott M et al. Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood: Recommendations from Key National Health and Nutrition Organizations. Technical Scientific Report. (Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research, 2019).

Introduce whole milk before lowfat or nonfat milk, avoid fruit juice or limit it to just a few sips a day, and stay away from “toddler milk” and chocolate milk entirely. A coalition of health and nutrition organizations offered all this and more in a new set of sometimes surprising recommendations about beverage consumption in children from birth to age 5 years.

LP7/E+/Getty Images

The recommendations “are based on the best available evidence, combined with sound expert judgment, and provide consistent messages that can be used by a variety of stakeholders to improve the beverage intake patterns of young children,” the report authors wrote. “It is imperative to capitalize on early childhood as a critical window of opportunity during which dietary patterns are both impressionable and capable of setting the stage for lifelong eating behaviors.”

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart Association released their recommendations titled “Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood” in a report published Sept. 18.

The organizations convened expert panels and analyzed research to develop consensus beverage recommendations. Here are some highlights from the report, the writing of which was led by Megan Lott, MPH, RDN, of Healthy Eating Research and Duke Global Health Institute at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

• Breast milk or formula. This is what babies should be drinking for the first year of life.
• Plain drinking water. None is needed in the first 6 months of life. Introduce 0.5-1.0 cups/day over the next 6 months in cups and during meals when solid food is introduced. Then 1-4 cups/day are recommended from age 1-3 years, then 1.5-5 cups by age 4-5 years.
• Plain, pasteurized milk. None during the first year, then 2-3 cups a day of whole milk at age 12-24 months; if weight gain is excessive or family history is positive for obesity, dyslipidemia, or other cardiovascular disease, the pediatrician may recommend skim or lowfat milk at 12-24 months. Then provide up to 2 cups (age 2-3 years) then 2.5 cups (age 4-5 years) per day of skim /fat-free milk or low fat/1% milk
• 100% juice. None until 12 months. Then it can be provided, although whole fruit is preferred. No more than 0.5 cup per day until age 4-5 years, when no more than 0.5-0.75 cup per day is recommended.
• Plant-based milks and non-dairy beverages. None from age 0-1 year. And at ages 1-5 years, they only should be consumed when medically indicated, such as when a child has an allergy or per a preferred diet such as a vegan one. The panel didn’t recommend them as full replacements for dairy milk from age 12-24 months, and it noted that “consumption of these beverages as a full replacement for dairy milk should be undertaken in consultation with a health care provider so that adequate intake of key nutrients commonly obtained from dairy milk can be considered in dietary planning.”
• Other beverages. Flavored milk (like chocolate milk), “toddler milk,” sugar-sweetened drinks (including soft drinks, flavored water, and various fruit drinks), low-calorie sweetened drinks, and caffeinated drinks are not recommended at any age from 0-5 years. Toddler milk products “offer no unique nutritional value beyond what a nutritionally adequate diet provides and may contribute added sugars to the diet and undermine sustained breastfeeding,” the report authors said.

Lillian M. Beard, MD, said in an interview, “Pediatricians and other child health providers have major roles of influence in parents’ choices of foods and beverages for their infants and young children.

“Following these first-ever consensus recommendations on healthy drinks will alter family grocery shopping patterns, and not only improve the overall health of children under age 5 years, but also may improve the health outcomes of everyone in the household.” Dr. Beard is a clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. She was not one of the report authors and was asked to comment on the report.

The report was supported by the Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

SOURCE: Lott M et al. Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood: Recommendations from Key National Health and Nutrition Organizations. Technical Scientific Report. (Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research, 2019).

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

In 2017, the Australian state of New South Wales experienced an outbreak of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children despite a high level of rotavirus immunization. In a new study, researchers reported evidence that suggests a decline in vaccine effectiveness (VE) isn’t the cause, although they found that VE declines over time as children age.

CDC/Dr. Erskine Palmer

“More analysis is required to investigate how novel or unusual strains ... interact with rotavirus vaccines and whether antigenic changes affect VE and challenge vaccination programs,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics.

Researchers led by Julia E. Maguire, BSc, MSci(Epi), of Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and the Australian National University, Canberra, launched the analysis in the wake of a 2017 outbreak of 2,319 rotavirus cases in New South Wales, a 210% increase over the rate in 2016. (The state, the largest in Australia, has about 7.5 million residents.)

The study authors tracked VE from 2010 to 2017 by analyzing 9,517 rotavirus cases in the state (50% male; median age, 5 years). Half weren’t eligible for rotavirus immunization because of their age; of the rest, 31% weren’t vaccinated.

Ms. Maguire and associates found that VE did not decline in 2017 and doesn’t seem to be responsible for the Australian rotavirus outbreak. “In our study, two doses of RV1 [the Rotarix vaccine] was 73.7% effective in protecting children aged 6 months to 9 years against laboratory-confirmed rotavirus over our 8-year study period. Somewhat surprisingly in the 2017 outbreak year, a high two-dose VE of 88.4% in those aged 6-11 months was also observed.”

They added that “the median age of rotavirus cases has increased in Australia over the last 8 years from 3.9 years in 2010 to 7.1 years in 2017. Adults and older children born before the availability of vaccination in Australia are unimmunized and may have been less likely to have repeated subclinical infections because of reductions in virus circulation overall, resulting in less immune boosting.”

Going forward, the study authors wrote that “investigation of population-level VE in relation to rotavirus genotype data should continue in a range of settings to improve our understanding of rotavirus vaccines and the impact they have on disease across the age spectrum over time.”

In an accompanying commentary, Benjamin Lee, MD, and E. Ross Colgate, PhD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, wrote that Australia’s adoption of rotavirus immunization in 2017 “with state-level implementation of either Rotarix or RotaTeq ... enabled a fascinating natural experiment of VE and strain selection.”

Pressure from vaccines “potentially enables the emergence of novel strains,” they wrote. “Despite this, large-scale strain replacement has not been demonstrated in rotaviruses, in contrast to the development of pneumococcal serotype replacement that was seen after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction. Similarly, there has been no evidence of widespread vaccine escape due to antigenic drift or shift, as occurs with another important segmented RNA virus, influenza A.”

As Dr. Lee and Dr. Colgate noted, 100 million children worldwide remain unvaccinated against rotavirus, and more than 128,000 die because of rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis each year. “Improving vaccine access and coverage and solving the riddle of [oral rotavirus vaccine] underperformance in low-income countries are urgent priorities, which may ultimately require next-generation oral and/or parenteral vaccines, a number of which are under development and in clinical trials. In addition, because the emergence of novel strains of disease-causing pathogens is always a possibility, vigilance in rotavirus surveillance, including genotype assessment, should remain a priority for public health programs.”

The study was funded by Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance, which receives government funding. The Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program is supported by government funding and the vaccine companies Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and GlaxoSmithKline. Ms. Maguire is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. One author is director of the Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program, which received funding as above. The other study authors and the commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Maguire JE et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1024; Lee B, Colgate ER. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2426.

In 2017, the Australian state of New South Wales experienced an outbreak of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children despite a high level of rotavirus immunization. In a new study, researchers reported evidence that suggests a decline in vaccine effectiveness (VE) isn’t the cause, although they found that VE declines over time as children age.

CDC/Dr. Erskine Palmer

“More analysis is required to investigate how novel or unusual strains ... interact with rotavirus vaccines and whether antigenic changes affect VE and challenge vaccination programs,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics.

Researchers led by Julia E. Maguire, BSc, MSci(Epi), of Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and the Australian National University, Canberra, launched the analysis in the wake of a 2017 outbreak of 2,319 rotavirus cases in New South Wales, a 210% increase over the rate in 2016. (The state, the largest in Australia, has about 7.5 million residents.)

The study authors tracked VE from 2010 to 2017 by analyzing 9,517 rotavirus cases in the state (50% male; median age, 5 years). Half weren’t eligible for rotavirus immunization because of their age; of the rest, 31% weren’t vaccinated.

Ms. Maguire and associates found that VE did not decline in 2017 and doesn’t seem to be responsible for the Australian rotavirus outbreak. “In our study, two doses of RV1 [the Rotarix vaccine] was 73.7% effective in protecting children aged 6 months to 9 years against laboratory-confirmed rotavirus over our 8-year study period. Somewhat surprisingly in the 2017 outbreak year, a high two-dose VE of 88.4% in those aged 6-11 months was also observed.”

They added that “the median age of rotavirus cases has increased in Australia over the last 8 years from 3.9 years in 2010 to 7.1 years in 2017. Adults and older children born before the availability of vaccination in Australia are unimmunized and may have been less likely to have repeated subclinical infections because of reductions in virus circulation overall, resulting in less immune boosting.”

Going forward, the study authors wrote that “investigation of population-level VE in relation to rotavirus genotype data should continue in a range of settings to improve our understanding of rotavirus vaccines and the impact they have on disease across the age spectrum over time.”

In an accompanying commentary, Benjamin Lee, MD, and E. Ross Colgate, PhD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, wrote that Australia’s adoption of rotavirus immunization in 2017 “with state-level implementation of either Rotarix or RotaTeq ... enabled a fascinating natural experiment of VE and strain selection.”

Pressure from vaccines “potentially enables the emergence of novel strains,” they wrote. “Despite this, large-scale strain replacement has not been demonstrated in rotaviruses, in contrast to the development of pneumococcal serotype replacement that was seen after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction. Similarly, there has been no evidence of widespread vaccine escape due to antigenic drift or shift, as occurs with another important segmented RNA virus, influenza A.”

As Dr. Lee and Dr. Colgate noted, 100 million children worldwide remain unvaccinated against rotavirus, and more than 128,000 die because of rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis each year. “Improving vaccine access and coverage and solving the riddle of [oral rotavirus vaccine] underperformance in low-income countries are urgent priorities, which may ultimately require next-generation oral and/or parenteral vaccines, a number of which are under development and in clinical trials. In addition, because the emergence of novel strains of disease-causing pathogens is always a possibility, vigilance in rotavirus surveillance, including genotype assessment, should remain a priority for public health programs.”

The study was funded by Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance, which receives government funding. The Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program is supported by government funding and the vaccine companies Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and GlaxoSmithKline. Ms. Maguire is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. One author is director of the Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program, which received funding as above. The other study authors and the commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Maguire JE et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1024; Lee B, Colgate ER. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2426.

In 2017, the Australian state of New South Wales experienced an outbreak of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children despite a high level of rotavirus immunization. In a new study, researchers reported evidence that suggests a decline in vaccine effectiveness (VE) isn’t the cause, although they found that VE declines over time as children age.

CDC/Dr. Erskine Palmer

“More analysis is required to investigate how novel or unusual strains ... interact with rotavirus vaccines and whether antigenic changes affect VE and challenge vaccination programs,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics.

Researchers led by Julia E. Maguire, BSc, MSci(Epi), of Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and the Australian National University, Canberra, launched the analysis in the wake of a 2017 outbreak of 2,319 rotavirus cases in New South Wales, a 210% increase over the rate in 2016. (The state, the largest in Australia, has about 7.5 million residents.)

The study authors tracked VE from 2010 to 2017 by analyzing 9,517 rotavirus cases in the state (50% male; median age, 5 years). Half weren’t eligible for rotavirus immunization because of their age; of the rest, 31% weren’t vaccinated.

Ms. Maguire and associates found that VE did not decline in 2017 and doesn’t seem to be responsible for the Australian rotavirus outbreak. “In our study, two doses of RV1 [the Rotarix vaccine] was 73.7% effective in protecting children aged 6 months to 9 years against laboratory-confirmed rotavirus over our 8-year study period. Somewhat surprisingly in the 2017 outbreak year, a high two-dose VE of 88.4% in those aged 6-11 months was also observed.”

They added that “the median age of rotavirus cases has increased in Australia over the last 8 years from 3.9 years in 2010 to 7.1 years in 2017. Adults and older children born before the availability of vaccination in Australia are unimmunized and may have been less likely to have repeated subclinical infections because of reductions in virus circulation overall, resulting in less immune boosting.”

Going forward, the study authors wrote that “investigation of population-level VE in relation to rotavirus genotype data should continue in a range of settings to improve our understanding of rotavirus vaccines and the impact they have on disease across the age spectrum over time.”

In an accompanying commentary, Benjamin Lee, MD, and E. Ross Colgate, PhD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, wrote that Australia’s adoption of rotavirus immunization in 2017 “with state-level implementation of either Rotarix or RotaTeq ... enabled a fascinating natural experiment of VE and strain selection.”

Pressure from vaccines “potentially enables the emergence of novel strains,” they wrote. “Despite this, large-scale strain replacement has not been demonstrated in rotaviruses, in contrast to the development of pneumococcal serotype replacement that was seen after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction. Similarly, there has been no evidence of widespread vaccine escape due to antigenic drift or shift, as occurs with another important segmented RNA virus, influenza A.”

As Dr. Lee and Dr. Colgate noted, 100 million children worldwide remain unvaccinated against rotavirus, and more than 128,000 die because of rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis each year. “Improving vaccine access and coverage and solving the riddle of [oral rotavirus vaccine] underperformance in low-income countries are urgent priorities, which may ultimately require next-generation oral and/or parenteral vaccines, a number of which are under development and in clinical trials. In addition, because the emergence of novel strains of disease-causing pathogens is always a possibility, vigilance in rotavirus surveillance, including genotype assessment, should remain a priority for public health programs.”

The study was funded by Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance, which receives government funding. The Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program is supported by government funding and the vaccine companies Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and GlaxoSmithKline. Ms. Maguire is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. One author is director of the Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program, which received funding as above. The other study authors and the commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Maguire JE et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1024; Lee B, Colgate ER. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2426.

Bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty reduces the likelihood of multiple complications but some risks increase, a large study has found.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The study, led by Yicun Wang, PhD, of Nanjing (China) University was published in the Journal of Arthroplasty. “Generally speaking, bariatric surgery decreases some postoperative complications, decreases length of stay, and lowers mortality,” the study investigators wrote, [but] anemia and blood transfusion seem to be more common in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

They analyzed the effect of bariatric surgery on subsequent arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients in the United States using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2006-2014 data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The researchers defined morbid obese patients as those with a body mass index higher than 40 kg/m².

Among patients who underwent TKA, the researchers compared a group of 9,803 morbidly obese patients with the same number of patients who had undergone bariatric surgery. The two groups were matched by age, sex, income, primary insurance payer, and race.

There were large differences between the bariatric surgery group vs. morbidly obese group: Pulmonary embolism was much more common in the morbid obesity group (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.03; P = .0346) while blood transfusion was more common in the bariatric surgery group (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52-2.03; P less than .0001).

For TKA, the researchers used the same approach to analyze 2,540 matched pairs of patients. In the bariatric surgery vs. morbidly obese comparison, pulmonary embolism was more common in the morbidly obese group (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.57; P less than .0001), as were respiratory complications (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78; P = .0032) and death (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50; P = .0005). But the bariatric surgery group had higher levels of blood transfusion (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.71-2.04; P less than .0001) and anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P less than .0001).

Going forward, the researchers write, “future studies on these patients should attempt to evaluate the impact of bariatric surgery on the long-term outcomes of arthroplasty.”

The study was supported by various funders including the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Project of Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province and others. No author disclosures are reported.

SOURCE: Wang Y et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;S0883-5403(19)30667-9.

Bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty reduces the likelihood of multiple complications but some risks increase, a large study has found.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The study, led by Yicun Wang, PhD, of Nanjing (China) University was published in the Journal of Arthroplasty. “Generally speaking, bariatric surgery decreases some postoperative complications, decreases length of stay, and lowers mortality,” the study investigators wrote, [but] anemia and blood transfusion seem to be more common in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

They analyzed the effect of bariatric surgery on subsequent arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients in the United States using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2006-2014 data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The researchers defined morbid obese patients as those with a body mass index higher than 40 kg/m².

Among patients who underwent TKA, the researchers compared a group of 9,803 morbidly obese patients with the same number of patients who had undergone bariatric surgery. The two groups were matched by age, sex, income, primary insurance payer, and race.

There were large differences between the bariatric surgery group vs. morbidly obese group: Pulmonary embolism was much more common in the morbid obesity group (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.03; P = .0346) while blood transfusion was more common in the bariatric surgery group (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52-2.03; P less than .0001).

For TKA, the researchers used the same approach to analyze 2,540 matched pairs of patients. In the bariatric surgery vs. morbidly obese comparison, pulmonary embolism was more common in the morbidly obese group (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.57; P less than .0001), as were respiratory complications (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78; P = .0032) and death (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50; P = .0005). But the bariatric surgery group had higher levels of blood transfusion (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.71-2.04; P less than .0001) and anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P less than .0001).

Going forward, the researchers write, “future studies on these patients should attempt to evaluate the impact of bariatric surgery on the long-term outcomes of arthroplasty.”

The study was supported by various funders including the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Project of Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province and others. No author disclosures are reported.

SOURCE: Wang Y et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;S0883-5403(19)30667-9.

Bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty reduces the likelihood of multiple complications but some risks increase, a large study has found.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The study, led by Yicun Wang, PhD, of Nanjing (China) University was published in the Journal of Arthroplasty. “Generally speaking, bariatric surgery decreases some postoperative complications, decreases length of stay, and lowers mortality,” the study investigators wrote, [but] anemia and blood transfusion seem to be more common in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

They analyzed the effect of bariatric surgery on subsequent arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients in the United States using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2006-2014 data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The researchers defined morbid obese patients as those with a body mass index higher than 40 kg/m².

Among patients who underwent TKA, the researchers compared a group of 9,803 morbidly obese patients with the same number of patients who had undergone bariatric surgery. The two groups were matched by age, sex, income, primary insurance payer, and race.

There were large differences between the bariatric surgery group vs. morbidly obese group: Pulmonary embolism was much more common in the morbid obesity group (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.03; P = .0346) while blood transfusion was more common in the bariatric surgery group (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52-2.03; P less than .0001).

For TKA, the researchers used the same approach to analyze 2,540 matched pairs of patients. In the bariatric surgery vs. morbidly obese comparison, pulmonary embolism was more common in the morbidly obese group (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.57; P less than .0001), as were respiratory complications (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78; P = .0032) and death (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50; P = .0005). But the bariatric surgery group had higher levels of blood transfusion (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.71-2.04; P less than .0001) and anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P less than .0001).

Going forward, the researchers write, “future studies on these patients should attempt to evaluate the impact of bariatric surgery on the long-term outcomes of arthroplasty.”

The study was supported by various funders including the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Project of Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province and others. No author disclosures are reported.

SOURCE: Wang Y et al. J Arthroplasty. 2019;S0883-5403(19)30667-9.

Men and women react differently to common drugs used to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to findings from a new European study, and women may be able to safely cut their doses in half and get the same level of relief as that provided by larger doses.

“This study ... brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men,” the study authors, led by Bernadet T. Santema, MD, of the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), wrote in an article published in the Lancet.

Dr. Santema and colleagues noted that current guidelines for the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers for men and women with heart failure do not differentiate between the genders, despite findings showing that, “with the same dose, the maximum plasma concentrations of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers were up to 2.5 times higher in women than in men.”

In addition, the researchers wrote, women are much more likely than men to suffer side effects from medications, and the effects tend to be more severe.

HFrEF accounts for an estimated 50% of the 5.7 million patients with heart failure in the United States (Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Aug 24. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.58; Card Fail Rev. 2017;3[1]:7-11.)

For the new study, researchers launched an ad hoc analysis of the findings of a prospective study of HFrEF patients in 11 European countries (1,308 men and 402 women) who took drugs in the three classes. Patients were receiving suboptimal medication doses at the start of the study, and physicians were encouraged to increase their medication. The median follow-up for the primary endpoint was 21 months.

“In men, the lowest hazards of death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred at 100% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers, but women showed about 30% lower risk at only 50% of the recommended doses, with no further decrease in risk at higher dose levels,” the researchers wrote. “These sex differences were still present after adjusting for clinical covariates, including age and body surface area.”

The researchers analyzed an Asian registry (3,539 men, 961 women) as a comparison and found the identical numbers.

“Our study provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that women with HFrEF might have the best outcomes with lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers than do men, and lower doses than recommended in international guidelines for heart failure,” they wrote. However, they added that it was not likely that sex-specific studies analyzing doses would be performed.

In an accompanying editorial, Heather P. Whitley, PharmD, and Warren D. Smith, PharmD, noted that clinical research has often failed to take gender differences into account. They wrote that the study – the first of its kind – was well executed and raises important questions, but the analysis did not take into account the prevalence of adverse effects or the serum concentrations of the various medications. Although those limitations weaken the findings, the study still offers evidence that gender-based, drug-dose guidelines deserve consideration, wrote Dr. Whitley, of Auburn (Ala.) University, and Dr. Smith, of Baptist Health System, Montgomery, Ala (Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31812-4).

The study was funded by the European Commission. Several study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Whitley and Dr. Smith reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santema BT et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31792-1.

Men and women react differently to common drugs used to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to findings from a new European study, and women may be able to safely cut their doses in half and get the same level of relief as that provided by larger doses.

“This study ... brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men,” the study authors, led by Bernadet T. Santema, MD, of the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), wrote in an article published in the Lancet.

Dr. Santema and colleagues noted that current guidelines for the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers for men and women with heart failure do not differentiate between the genders, despite findings showing that, “with the same dose, the maximum plasma concentrations of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers were up to 2.5 times higher in women than in men.”

In addition, the researchers wrote, women are much more likely than men to suffer side effects from medications, and the effects tend to be more severe.

HFrEF accounts for an estimated 50% of the 5.7 million patients with heart failure in the United States (Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Aug 24. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.58; Card Fail Rev. 2017;3[1]:7-11.)

For the new study, researchers launched an ad hoc analysis of the findings of a prospective study of HFrEF patients in 11 European countries (1,308 men and 402 women) who took drugs in the three classes. Patients were receiving suboptimal medication doses at the start of the study, and physicians were encouraged to increase their medication. The median follow-up for the primary endpoint was 21 months.

“In men, the lowest hazards of death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred at 100% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers, but women showed about 30% lower risk at only 50% of the recommended doses, with no further decrease in risk at higher dose levels,” the researchers wrote. “These sex differences were still present after adjusting for clinical covariates, including age and body surface area.”

The researchers analyzed an Asian registry (3,539 men, 961 women) as a comparison and found the identical numbers.

“Our study provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that women with HFrEF might have the best outcomes with lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers than do men, and lower doses than recommended in international guidelines for heart failure,” they wrote. However, they added that it was not likely that sex-specific studies analyzing doses would be performed.

In an accompanying editorial, Heather P. Whitley, PharmD, and Warren D. Smith, PharmD, noted that clinical research has often failed to take gender differences into account. They wrote that the study – the first of its kind – was well executed and raises important questions, but the analysis did not take into account the prevalence of adverse effects or the serum concentrations of the various medications. Although those limitations weaken the findings, the study still offers evidence that gender-based, drug-dose guidelines deserve consideration, wrote Dr. Whitley, of Auburn (Ala.) University, and Dr. Smith, of Baptist Health System, Montgomery, Ala (Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31812-4).

The study was funded by the European Commission. Several study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Whitley and Dr. Smith reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santema BT et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31792-1.

Men and women react differently to common drugs used to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to findings from a new European study, and women may be able to safely cut their doses in half and get the same level of relief as that provided by larger doses.

“This study ... brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men,” the study authors, led by Bernadet T. Santema, MD, of the University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), wrote in an article published in the Lancet.

Dr. Santema and colleagues noted that current guidelines for the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers for men and women with heart failure do not differentiate between the genders, despite findings showing that, “with the same dose, the maximum plasma concentrations of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers were up to 2.5 times higher in women than in men.”

In addition, the researchers wrote, women are much more likely than men to suffer side effects from medications, and the effects tend to be more severe.

HFrEF accounts for an estimated 50% of the 5.7 million patients with heart failure in the United States (Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Aug 24. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.58; Card Fail Rev. 2017;3[1]:7-11.)

For the new study, researchers launched an ad hoc analysis of the findings of a prospective study of HFrEF patients in 11 European countries (1,308 men and 402 women) who took drugs in the three classes. Patients were receiving suboptimal medication doses at the start of the study, and physicians were encouraged to increase their medication. The median follow-up for the primary endpoint was 21 months.

“In men, the lowest hazards of death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred at 100% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers, but women showed about 30% lower risk at only 50% of the recommended doses, with no further decrease in risk at higher dose levels,” the researchers wrote. “These sex differences were still present after adjusting for clinical covariates, including age and body surface area.”

The researchers analyzed an Asian registry (3,539 men, 961 women) as a comparison and found the identical numbers.

“Our study provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that women with HFrEF might have the best outcomes with lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta-blockers than do men, and lower doses than recommended in international guidelines for heart failure,” they wrote. However, they added that it was not likely that sex-specific studies analyzing doses would be performed.

In an accompanying editorial, Heather P. Whitley, PharmD, and Warren D. Smith, PharmD, noted that clinical research has often failed to take gender differences into account. They wrote that the study – the first of its kind – was well executed and raises important questions, but the analysis did not take into account the prevalence of adverse effects or the serum concentrations of the various medications. Although those limitations weaken the findings, the study still offers evidence that gender-based, drug-dose guidelines deserve consideration, wrote Dr. Whitley, of Auburn (Ala.) University, and Dr. Smith, of Baptist Health System, Montgomery, Ala (Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31812-4).

The study was funded by the European Commission. Several study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Whitley and Dr. Smith reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santema BT et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31792-1.

Deep surgical-site infections (SSIs) and septic arthritis are not uncommon after the surgeries for periarticular knee fractures, a meta-analysis of existing research found.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

According to an analysis of data on 11,432 patients who underwent surgery for periarticular knee fractures, 5.7% had deep postoperative SSIs. A smaller analysis of 1,567 patients found that 2.4% had septic arthritis. “Surgeons managing periarticular knee fractures should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine,” the investigators recommended.

The report, which appeared in JAMA Network Open, was led by premed student Grayson R. Norris of High Point (N.C.) University.

The researchers noted that there are widely variable statistics regarding SSI after surgery for periarticular knee fractures. A better understanding of the risk would help orthopedic surgeons, given the mortality risk and extra costs associated with postoperative deep SSIs.

For the analysis, the researchers reviewed 117 studies with 11,432 patients who had fractures in the tibial plateau (61% of studies), distal femur (14%), proximal tibia (11%), patella (9%), and multiple sites (6%). More than two-thirds of the studies were retrospective.

Overall, 5.7% of patients suffered deep SSIs, with the highest percentage in the proximal tibia group (6.4%).

A total of 20 studies examined septic arthritis and found that 2.4% of patients in those studies suffered from the condition. Of 182 cases of deep SSIs with bacterial culture results, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus were the most common bacteria.

“Considering that MRSA was the most common pathogen in our study and that this pathogen is increasing in prevalence, health care practitioners should revisit the use of specific and appropriate prophylactic antibiotics,” the researchers wrote. “Risk factors, such as open fractures, diabetes, smoking, and, most importantly, compartment syndrome, should alert the treating surgeon to an increased risk. Further work is needed to mitigate the association of these conditions with SSI risk in periarticular knee fractures.”

The researchers added that many of the studies in their analysis were of poor quality. “Authors in orthopedic traumatology should strive to conduct higher-quality research, such as randomized clinical trials and case-control or cohort studies,” they noted.

One author reported receiving grants from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. No study funding was reported.

SOURCE: Norris GR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199951.

Deep surgical-site infections (SSIs) and septic arthritis are not uncommon after the surgeries for periarticular knee fractures, a meta-analysis of existing research found.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

According to an analysis of data on 11,432 patients who underwent surgery for periarticular knee fractures, 5.7% had deep postoperative SSIs. A smaller analysis of 1,567 patients found that 2.4% had septic arthritis. “Surgeons managing periarticular knee fractures should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine,” the investigators recommended.

The report, which appeared in JAMA Network Open, was led by premed student Grayson R. Norris of High Point (N.C.) University.

The researchers noted that there are widely variable statistics regarding SSI after surgery for periarticular knee fractures. A better understanding of the risk would help orthopedic surgeons, given the mortality risk and extra costs associated with postoperative deep SSIs.

For the analysis, the researchers reviewed 117 studies with 11,432 patients who had fractures in the tibial plateau (61% of studies), distal femur (14%), proximal tibia (11%), patella (9%), and multiple sites (6%). More than two-thirds of the studies were retrospective.

Overall, 5.7% of patients suffered deep SSIs, with the highest percentage in the proximal tibia group (6.4%).

A total of 20 studies examined septic arthritis and found that 2.4% of patients in those studies suffered from the condition. Of 182 cases of deep SSIs with bacterial culture results, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus were the most common bacteria.

“Considering that MRSA was the most common pathogen in our study and that this pathogen is increasing in prevalence, health care practitioners should revisit the use of specific and appropriate prophylactic antibiotics,” the researchers wrote. “Risk factors, such as open fractures, diabetes, smoking, and, most importantly, compartment syndrome, should alert the treating surgeon to an increased risk. Further work is needed to mitigate the association of these conditions with SSI risk in periarticular knee fractures.”

The researchers added that many of the studies in their analysis were of poor quality. “Authors in orthopedic traumatology should strive to conduct higher-quality research, such as randomized clinical trials and case-control or cohort studies,” they noted.

One author reported receiving grants from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. No study funding was reported.

SOURCE: Norris GR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199951.

Deep surgical-site infections (SSIs) and septic arthritis are not uncommon after the surgeries for periarticular knee fractures, a meta-analysis of existing research found.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

According to an analysis of data on 11,432 patients who underwent surgery for periarticular knee fractures, 5.7% had deep postoperative SSIs. A smaller analysis of 1,567 patients found that 2.4% had septic arthritis. “Surgeons managing periarticular knee fractures should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine,” the investigators recommended.

The report, which appeared in JAMA Network Open, was led by premed student Grayson R. Norris of High Point (N.C.) University.

The researchers noted that there are widely variable statistics regarding SSI after surgery for periarticular knee fractures. A better understanding of the risk would help orthopedic surgeons, given the mortality risk and extra costs associated with postoperative deep SSIs.

For the analysis, the researchers reviewed 117 studies with 11,432 patients who had fractures in the tibial plateau (61% of studies), distal femur (14%), proximal tibia (11%), patella (9%), and multiple sites (6%). More than two-thirds of the studies were retrospective.

Overall, 5.7% of patients suffered deep SSIs, with the highest percentage in the proximal tibia group (6.4%).

A total of 20 studies examined septic arthritis and found that 2.4% of patients in those studies suffered from the condition. Of 182 cases of deep SSIs with bacterial culture results, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus were the most common bacteria.

“Considering that MRSA was the most common pathogen in our study and that this pathogen is increasing in prevalence, health care practitioners should revisit the use of specific and appropriate prophylactic antibiotics,” the researchers wrote. “Risk factors, such as open fractures, diabetes, smoking, and, most importantly, compartment syndrome, should alert the treating surgeon to an increased risk. Further work is needed to mitigate the association of these conditions with SSI risk in periarticular knee fractures.”

The researchers added that many of the studies in their analysis were of poor quality. “Authors in orthopedic traumatology should strive to conduct higher-quality research, such as randomized clinical trials and case-control or cohort studies,” they noted.

One author reported receiving grants from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. No study funding was reported.

SOURCE: Norris GR et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199951.