Federal Practitioner

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Columbia University has appointed an interim chair of psychiatry in the wake of a controversial tweet sent out on Feb. 21, according to an email obtained by this news organization that was sent by university leadership to faculty and staff on Feb. 28.

Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, will take over for Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, who was suspended over a tweet he sent that was widely condemned as both racist and sexist.

She will also serve as interim director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and interim psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the email stated.

All appointments were effective on Feb. 28.
 

Latest response

Dr. Simpson, who joined the faculty at Columbia in 1999, previously served as a professor and vice chair of research for the psychiatry department, director of Columbia’s Center for Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, and director of psychiatry research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Simpson is associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and is president-elect of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

Her research has been continuously funded by the National Institute of Mental Health since 1999, and she has advised both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association on the diagnosis and treatment of OCD.

Dr. Simpson has a bachelor’s degree in biology from Yale University and completed an MD-PhD program at The Rockefeller University and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. She did her residency in psychiatry at New York–Presbyterian.

The announcement is Columbia’s latest response to the furor that erupted on social media following Dr. Lieberman’s tweet about Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech, in which he wrote, “Whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

Twitter reacted immediately and negatively to the tweet, which even Dr. Lieberman later acknowledged was “racist and sexist” in an email apology he sent Feb. 22 to faculty and staff in the department of psychiatry.

As reported by this news organization, Columbia suspended Dr. Lieberman from his chair position on Feb. 23 and permanently removed him from the post of psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Lieberman also resigned as executive director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

The email announcing Simpson’s appointment was signed by Katrina Armstrong, MD, incoming CEO, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons; Anil K. Rustgi, MD, interim executive vice president and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine; Steven J. Corwin, MD; president and CEO, New York–Presbyterian; and Ann Marie Sullivan, MD, commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health.

This is a developing story.

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

Columbia University has appointed an interim chair of psychiatry in the wake of a controversial tweet sent out on Feb. 21, according to an email obtained by this news organization that was sent by university leadership to faculty and staff on Feb. 28.

Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, will take over for Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, who was suspended over a tweet he sent that was widely condemned as both racist and sexist.

She will also serve as interim director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and interim psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the email stated.

All appointments were effective on Feb. 28.
 

Latest response

Dr. Simpson, who joined the faculty at Columbia in 1999, previously served as a professor and vice chair of research for the psychiatry department, director of Columbia’s Center for Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, and director of psychiatry research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Simpson is associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and is president-elect of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

Her research has been continuously funded by the National Institute of Mental Health since 1999, and she has advised both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association on the diagnosis and treatment of OCD.

Dr. Simpson has a bachelor’s degree in biology from Yale University and completed an MD-PhD program at The Rockefeller University and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. She did her residency in psychiatry at New York–Presbyterian.

The announcement is Columbia’s latest response to the furor that erupted on social media following Dr. Lieberman’s tweet about Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech, in which he wrote, “Whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

Twitter reacted immediately and negatively to the tweet, which even Dr. Lieberman later acknowledged was “racist and sexist” in an email apology he sent Feb. 22 to faculty and staff in the department of psychiatry.

As reported by this news organization, Columbia suspended Dr. Lieberman from his chair position on Feb. 23 and permanently removed him from the post of psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Lieberman also resigned as executive director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

The email announcing Simpson’s appointment was signed by Katrina Armstrong, MD, incoming CEO, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons; Anil K. Rustgi, MD, interim executive vice president and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine; Steven J. Corwin, MD; president and CEO, New York–Presbyterian; and Ann Marie Sullivan, MD, commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health.

This is a developing story.

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

Columbia University has appointed an interim chair of psychiatry in the wake of a controversial tweet sent out on Feb. 21, according to an email obtained by this news organization that was sent by university leadership to faculty and staff on Feb. 28.

Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, will take over for Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, who was suspended over a tweet he sent that was widely condemned as both racist and sexist.

She will also serve as interim director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and interim psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the email stated.

All appointments were effective on Feb. 28.
 

Latest response

Dr. Simpson, who joined the faculty at Columbia in 1999, previously served as a professor and vice chair of research for the psychiatry department, director of Columbia’s Center for Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, and director of psychiatry research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Simpson is associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and is president-elect of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

Her research has been continuously funded by the National Institute of Mental Health since 1999, and she has advised both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association on the diagnosis and treatment of OCD.

Dr. Simpson has a bachelor’s degree in biology from Yale University and completed an MD-PhD program at The Rockefeller University and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. She did her residency in psychiatry at New York–Presbyterian.

The announcement is Columbia’s latest response to the furor that erupted on social media following Dr. Lieberman’s tweet about Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech, in which he wrote, “Whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

Twitter reacted immediately and negatively to the tweet, which even Dr. Lieberman later acknowledged was “racist and sexist” in an email apology he sent Feb. 22 to faculty and staff in the department of psychiatry.

As reported by this news organization, Columbia suspended Dr. Lieberman from his chair position on Feb. 23 and permanently removed him from the post of psychiatrist-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Lieberman also resigned as executive director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

The email announcing Simpson’s appointment was signed by Katrina Armstrong, MD, incoming CEO, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons; Anil K. Rustgi, MD, interim executive vice president and dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine; Steven J. Corwin, MD; president and CEO, New York–Presbyterian; and Ann Marie Sullivan, MD, commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health.

This is a developing story.

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.