Federal Practitioner

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

It’s now confirmed: What you eat does affect your risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC).

An umbrella review of studies and meta-analyses found “convincing evidence of an association between a lower CRC risk and higher intakes of dietary fiber, dietary calcium, and yogurt and lower intakes of alcohol and red meat.”

However, more research is needed to address the link between CRC and other foods, including dairy products, whole grains, processed meat, and specific dietary patterns, the authors conclude.

“We can say that the existing recommendations for diet in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer is confirmed,” said lead author Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, PharmD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“It makes sense to encourage healthy diet, including those rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and low-fat dairy, and reducing red meat and alcohol intake,” he said in an interview. “However, some of them may not yet have convincing evidence to fully support the claim.”

Other lifestyle factors, including excess weight and physical inactivity, also play a role in cancer risk. Dr. Chaiyakunapruk pointed out that their review was focused only on diet and that they had set out to confirm factors for which there was strong and convincing evidence.

The review was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses found 109 associations. Overall, 35 of these 109 associations (32.1%) were nominally statistically significant, as determined on the basis of random-effects meta-analysis models, the researchers explained.

Convincing evidence was found for an increase in the risk for CRC with higher versus lower red meat consumption and with heavy alcohol intake (defined as more than four drinks per day, compared with no drinks per day or occasional drinks).

In addition, convincing evidence was found for three inverse associations: a decrease in the risk for CRC was associated with higher versus lower intake of total dietary fiber, calcium, and yogurt.

The researchers noted that, although not completely convincing, there was highly suggestive evidence for another association: a link between diet and CRC incidence. A higher intake of total dairy products (e.g., milk, cheese, and yogurt) was associated with significant risk reduction, in comparison with lower intake. A moderate intake of alcohol (from one to three drinks but not more than four per day) was associated with an increase in incidence in comparison with no drinks or an occasional drink.

Evidence suggested a reduced risk in association with several lifestyle behaviors, including adherence to a Mediterranean diet, a healthy diet, a pesco-vegetarian or semivegetarian diet, and the intake of whole grains, nonfermented milk, and supplemental calcium.

The evidence suggested that adherence to a Western diet and intake of processed meat were associated with an increased risk for CRC.

There was weak or no evidence for the remaining associations.
 

Existing cancer prevention guidelines

The findings support the existing cancer prevention dietary guidance and recommendations from the American Institute for Cancer Research, commented the institute’s director of nutrition programs, Sheena Swanner Patel, MS, RDN. The study confirms that dietary factors play a strong role in lowering CRC risk.

“AICR’s report found strong evidence for whole grains, foods containing dietary fiber, dairy products, and calcium supplements decreasing risk for colorectal cancer,” she said. “Specifically, eating 90 g or three servings of whole grains per day is associated with a 17% decrease in colorectal cancer risk.”

Ms. Patel added that the AICR’s report also suggested there was strong evidence that eating large amounts of red and processed meat, drinking alcohol excessively, and carrying extra body weight increased the risk for CRC.

Many previous studies have suggested a link between diet and CRC risk. One recent study suggested that, among all cancers, CRC has the highest proportion of diet-related cases (38.3%). The next highest were cancers of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx, for which almost 26% of cases were linked to diet, followed by endometrial cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, and cancers of the kidney, stomach, liver, pancreas, and esophagus.

Neither Dr. Chaiyakunapruk and coauthors nor Ms. Patel disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

It’s now confirmed: What you eat does affect your risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC).

An umbrella review of studies and meta-analyses found “convincing evidence of an association between a lower CRC risk and higher intakes of dietary fiber, dietary calcium, and yogurt and lower intakes of alcohol and red meat.”

However, more research is needed to address the link between CRC and other foods, including dairy products, whole grains, processed meat, and specific dietary patterns, the authors conclude.

“We can say that the existing recommendations for diet in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer is confirmed,” said lead author Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, PharmD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“It makes sense to encourage healthy diet, including those rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and low-fat dairy, and reducing red meat and alcohol intake,” he said in an interview. “However, some of them may not yet have convincing evidence to fully support the claim.”

Other lifestyle factors, including excess weight and physical inactivity, also play a role in cancer risk. Dr. Chaiyakunapruk pointed out that their review was focused only on diet and that they had set out to confirm factors for which there was strong and convincing evidence.

The review was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses found 109 associations. Overall, 35 of these 109 associations (32.1%) were nominally statistically significant, as determined on the basis of random-effects meta-analysis models, the researchers explained.

Convincing evidence was found for an increase in the risk for CRC with higher versus lower red meat consumption and with heavy alcohol intake (defined as more than four drinks per day, compared with no drinks per day or occasional drinks).

In addition, convincing evidence was found for three inverse associations: a decrease in the risk for CRC was associated with higher versus lower intake of total dietary fiber, calcium, and yogurt.

The researchers noted that, although not completely convincing, there was highly suggestive evidence for another association: a link between diet and CRC incidence. A higher intake of total dairy products (e.g., milk, cheese, and yogurt) was associated with significant risk reduction, in comparison with lower intake. A moderate intake of alcohol (from one to three drinks but not more than four per day) was associated with an increase in incidence in comparison with no drinks or an occasional drink.

Evidence suggested a reduced risk in association with several lifestyle behaviors, including adherence to a Mediterranean diet, a healthy diet, a pesco-vegetarian or semivegetarian diet, and the intake of whole grains, nonfermented milk, and supplemental calcium.

The evidence suggested that adherence to a Western diet and intake of processed meat were associated with an increased risk for CRC.

There was weak or no evidence for the remaining associations.
 

Existing cancer prevention guidelines

The findings support the existing cancer prevention dietary guidance and recommendations from the American Institute for Cancer Research, commented the institute’s director of nutrition programs, Sheena Swanner Patel, MS, RDN. The study confirms that dietary factors play a strong role in lowering CRC risk.

“AICR’s report found strong evidence for whole grains, foods containing dietary fiber, dairy products, and calcium supplements decreasing risk for colorectal cancer,” she said. “Specifically, eating 90 g or three servings of whole grains per day is associated with a 17% decrease in colorectal cancer risk.”

Ms. Patel added that the AICR’s report also suggested there was strong evidence that eating large amounts of red and processed meat, drinking alcohol excessively, and carrying extra body weight increased the risk for CRC.

Many previous studies have suggested a link between diet and CRC risk. One recent study suggested that, among all cancers, CRC has the highest proportion of diet-related cases (38.3%). The next highest were cancers of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx, for which almost 26% of cases were linked to diet, followed by endometrial cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, and cancers of the kidney, stomach, liver, pancreas, and esophagus.

Neither Dr. Chaiyakunapruk and coauthors nor Ms. Patel disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

It’s now confirmed: What you eat does affect your risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC).

An umbrella review of studies and meta-analyses found “convincing evidence of an association between a lower CRC risk and higher intakes of dietary fiber, dietary calcium, and yogurt and lower intakes of alcohol and red meat.”

However, more research is needed to address the link between CRC and other foods, including dairy products, whole grains, processed meat, and specific dietary patterns, the authors conclude.

“We can say that the existing recommendations for diet in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer is confirmed,” said lead author Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, PharmD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“It makes sense to encourage healthy diet, including those rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and low-fat dairy, and reducing red meat and alcohol intake,” he said in an interview. “However, some of them may not yet have convincing evidence to fully support the claim.”

Other lifestyle factors, including excess weight and physical inactivity, also play a role in cancer risk. Dr. Chaiyakunapruk pointed out that their review was focused only on diet and that they had set out to confirm factors for which there was strong and convincing evidence.

The review was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses found 109 associations. Overall, 35 of these 109 associations (32.1%) were nominally statistically significant, as determined on the basis of random-effects meta-analysis models, the researchers explained.

Convincing evidence was found for an increase in the risk for CRC with higher versus lower red meat consumption and with heavy alcohol intake (defined as more than four drinks per day, compared with no drinks per day or occasional drinks).

In addition, convincing evidence was found for three inverse associations: a decrease in the risk for CRC was associated with higher versus lower intake of total dietary fiber, calcium, and yogurt.

The researchers noted that, although not completely convincing, there was highly suggestive evidence for another association: a link between diet and CRC incidence. A higher intake of total dairy products (e.g., milk, cheese, and yogurt) was associated with significant risk reduction, in comparison with lower intake. A moderate intake of alcohol (from one to three drinks but not more than four per day) was associated with an increase in incidence in comparison with no drinks or an occasional drink.

Evidence suggested a reduced risk in association with several lifestyle behaviors, including adherence to a Mediterranean diet, a healthy diet, a pesco-vegetarian or semivegetarian diet, and the intake of whole grains, nonfermented milk, and supplemental calcium.

The evidence suggested that adherence to a Western diet and intake of processed meat were associated with an increased risk for CRC.

There was weak or no evidence for the remaining associations.
 

Existing cancer prevention guidelines

The findings support the existing cancer prevention dietary guidance and recommendations from the American Institute for Cancer Research, commented the institute’s director of nutrition programs, Sheena Swanner Patel, MS, RDN. The study confirms that dietary factors play a strong role in lowering CRC risk.

“AICR’s report found strong evidence for whole grains, foods containing dietary fiber, dairy products, and calcium supplements decreasing risk for colorectal cancer,” she said. “Specifically, eating 90 g or three servings of whole grains per day is associated with a 17% decrease in colorectal cancer risk.”

Ms. Patel added that the AICR’s report also suggested there was strong evidence that eating large amounts of red and processed meat, drinking alcohol excessively, and carrying extra body weight increased the risk for CRC.

Many previous studies have suggested a link between diet and CRC risk. One recent study suggested that, among all cancers, CRC has the highest proportion of diet-related cases (38.3%). The next highest were cancers of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx, for which almost 26% of cases were linked to diet, followed by endometrial cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, and cancers of the kidney, stomach, liver, pancreas, and esophagus.

Neither Dr. Chaiyakunapruk and coauthors nor Ms. Patel disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

A new report by the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) documents how elements included in many bills passed on Capitol Hill have failed to improve the efficacy of mental health services for our nation’s former service members.¹ The authors argue that while these efforts may be well intended, they often compound problems by squandering precious financial resources and stretching an already overtaxed workforce. Clearly, there are shortcomings in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), our nation’s largest integrated health care system, but rather than bash the VA, as the media and Congress tend to favor, let’s learn from its successes as we improve its services.

To do this we must avoid several policy pitfalls. Consider, for example, the VA MISSION Act (38 USC § 1703), which aimed to increase veteran access to quality health care outside the VA system. Studies confirmed that private sector mental health providers are not ready to deliver veteran-specific mental health care.^2,3 Indeed, a RAND report found that psychotherapists in the private sector were unlikely to have the requisite skills necessary to deliver high-quality mental health care to service members or veterans.⁴

The MISSION Act meant to fix this clinical deficit by directing that competency standards be set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and military sexual trauma. But to date, no minimum competency standards have been set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans’ common psychological conditions. A license is all they need.

Legislation like the MISSION Act and the newly passed Commander John Scott Hannon Act (38 USC § 101) also assume that veterans who are suicidal or have mental health problems and don’t go to the VA will seek care from private sector providers. Nothing is further from the truth. Many veterans are deeply resistant to seeking mental health care no matter where that care is delivered.^4,5 Sometimes veterans believe that mental health problems are a sign of weakness and are loathe to seek help.

To address this issue, the VA pioneered models of integrated mental health and primary care services.⁶ This means that if a veteran goes to an outpatient primary care clinic at a VA medical facility or community-based outpatient clinic and discusses a mental health or substance abuse problem, the veteran can get immediate care with a mental health provider without making a separate mental health appointment. In addition, the VA already provides routine, annual screening for PTSD and sexual assault as well as depression and substance abuse at all its primary care clinics nationwide. Thanks to comprehensive screening (at a level unknown in most other health care systems) even if a veteran doesn’t spontaneously report a trauma history or mental health distress, VA is able to identify the problem and offer help right in the primary care clinic. This one-stop shopping reduces the shame and stigma of having to make an appointment with a mental health provider, allows treatment to begin immediately, and reduces no shows at follow-up appointments.

Other health care systems are trying to copy the VA model of integrated primary and mental health care, but given our fragmented insurance system, it’s not easy to replicate.⁷ According to Suzanne Gordon coauthor of the VHPI study, “This VA innovation encourages veterans, socialized by the military to conceal serious mental health problems, to get immediate help. So do many other VA programs, like peer support groups and networks. Legislation needs to strengthen, not weaken, such programs that are almost impossible to reproduce in the private sector.” Outside of VA, mental health challenges faced by veterans likely go undetected, and many veterans will not receive the care that might change, or even save, their lives.

VA best practices include an unprecedented national training initiative on 16 evidence-based psychotherapies that has been in operation for more than a decade.⁸ These high-quality treatments target debilitating conditions such as depression, PTSD, substance use disorders, insomnia, and chronic pain.^9-13 More than 12,700 VA mental health providers have received training in these evidence-based psychotherapies.

“There is no way that non-VA health care systems can ever duplicate the quality of training and supervision that has now been provided, nationally, to VA mental health professionals,” Josef Ruzek, PhD, former Director of the VA National Center for PTSD Dissemination and Training Division told me in a phone conversation (January 14, 2021). “Their program of training and implementation in the very best treatments for veteran mental health conditions stands as an international model of a complex, well-executed, large-scale program to improve mental health service delivery and improve the outcomes of treatment.”

The VA not only paid for the training of these mental health providers, but also contributed substantial efforts to assist in the implementation and sustainability of such practices. These include policy changes mandating their availability at all VA facilities, designation of local evidence-based coordinators at each medical center, and even a nationwide PTSD mentoring program to help PTSD clinic managers make organizational changes and to guide the efforts of any VA clinician seeking advice on how to engage and work with a veteran living with PTSD.¹⁴ All these incredible dissemination and implementation endeavors have resulted in a substantial overall decrease in mental health symptoms and substance misuse behaviors and increase in functional outcomes, like improvement in relationship functioning and increase in quality of life for many veterans.

As a trauma psychologist and former VA employee, I urge lawmakers to assure that veterans are not sent to private sector providers who don’t understand their unique needs and aren’t trained to serve them well, and to similarly assure that systems of care are carefully designed to meet the specific needs of veterans.

A new report by the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) documents how elements included in many bills passed on Capitol Hill have failed to improve the efficacy of mental health services for our nation’s former service members.¹ The authors argue that while these efforts may be well intended, they often compound problems by squandering precious financial resources and stretching an already overtaxed workforce. Clearly, there are shortcomings in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), our nation’s largest integrated health care system, but rather than bash the VA, as the media and Congress tend to favor, let’s learn from its successes as we improve its services.

To do this we must avoid several policy pitfalls. Consider, for example, the VA MISSION Act (38 USC § 1703), which aimed to increase veteran access to quality health care outside the VA system. Studies confirmed that private sector mental health providers are not ready to deliver veteran-specific mental health care.^2,3 Indeed, a RAND report found that psychotherapists in the private sector were unlikely to have the requisite skills necessary to deliver high-quality mental health care to service members or veterans.⁴

The MISSION Act meant to fix this clinical deficit by directing that competency standards be set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and military sexual trauma. But to date, no minimum competency standards have been set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans’ common psychological conditions. A license is all they need.

Legislation like the MISSION Act and the newly passed Commander John Scott Hannon Act (38 USC § 101) also assume that veterans who are suicidal or have mental health problems and don’t go to the VA will seek care from private sector providers. Nothing is further from the truth. Many veterans are deeply resistant to seeking mental health care no matter where that care is delivered.^4,5 Sometimes veterans believe that mental health problems are a sign of weakness and are loathe to seek help.

To address this issue, the VA pioneered models of integrated mental health and primary care services.⁶ This means that if a veteran goes to an outpatient primary care clinic at a VA medical facility or community-based outpatient clinic and discusses a mental health or substance abuse problem, the veteran can get immediate care with a mental health provider without making a separate mental health appointment. In addition, the VA already provides routine, annual screening for PTSD and sexual assault as well as depression and substance abuse at all its primary care clinics nationwide. Thanks to comprehensive screening (at a level unknown in most other health care systems) even if a veteran doesn’t spontaneously report a trauma history or mental health distress, VA is able to identify the problem and offer help right in the primary care clinic. This one-stop shopping reduces the shame and stigma of having to make an appointment with a mental health provider, allows treatment to begin immediately, and reduces no shows at follow-up appointments.

Other health care systems are trying to copy the VA model of integrated primary and mental health care, but given our fragmented insurance system, it’s not easy to replicate.⁷ According to Suzanne Gordon coauthor of the VHPI study, “This VA innovation encourages veterans, socialized by the military to conceal serious mental health problems, to get immediate help. So do many other VA programs, like peer support groups and networks. Legislation needs to strengthen, not weaken, such programs that are almost impossible to reproduce in the private sector.” Outside of VA, mental health challenges faced by veterans likely go undetected, and many veterans will not receive the care that might change, or even save, their lives.

VA best practices include an unprecedented national training initiative on 16 evidence-based psychotherapies that has been in operation for more than a decade.⁸ These high-quality treatments target debilitating conditions such as depression, PTSD, substance use disorders, insomnia, and chronic pain.^9-13 More than 12,700 VA mental health providers have received training in these evidence-based psychotherapies.

“There is no way that non-VA health care systems can ever duplicate the quality of training and supervision that has now been provided, nationally, to VA mental health professionals,” Josef Ruzek, PhD, former Director of the VA National Center for PTSD Dissemination and Training Division told me in a phone conversation (January 14, 2021). “Their program of training and implementation in the very best treatments for veteran mental health conditions stands as an international model of a complex, well-executed, large-scale program to improve mental health service delivery and improve the outcomes of treatment.”

The VA not only paid for the training of these mental health providers, but also contributed substantial efforts to assist in the implementation and sustainability of such practices. These include policy changes mandating their availability at all VA facilities, designation of local evidence-based coordinators at each medical center, and even a nationwide PTSD mentoring program to help PTSD clinic managers make organizational changes and to guide the efforts of any VA clinician seeking advice on how to engage and work with a veteran living with PTSD.¹⁴ All these incredible dissemination and implementation endeavors have resulted in a substantial overall decrease in mental health symptoms and substance misuse behaviors and increase in functional outcomes, like improvement in relationship functioning and increase in quality of life for many veterans.

As a trauma psychologist and former VA employee, I urge lawmakers to assure that veterans are not sent to private sector providers who don’t understand their unique needs and aren’t trained to serve them well, and to similarly assure that systems of care are carefully designed to meet the specific needs of veterans.

A new report by the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) documents how elements included in many bills passed on Capitol Hill have failed to improve the efficacy of mental health services for our nation’s former service members.¹ The authors argue that while these efforts may be well intended, they often compound problems by squandering precious financial resources and stretching an already overtaxed workforce. Clearly, there are shortcomings in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), our nation’s largest integrated health care system, but rather than bash the VA, as the media and Congress tend to favor, let’s learn from its successes as we improve its services.

To do this we must avoid several policy pitfalls. Consider, for example, the VA MISSION Act (38 USC § 1703), which aimed to increase veteran access to quality health care outside the VA system. Studies confirmed that private sector mental health providers are not ready to deliver veteran-specific mental health care.^2,3 Indeed, a RAND report found that psychotherapists in the private sector were unlikely to have the requisite skills necessary to deliver high-quality mental health care to service members or veterans.⁴

The MISSION Act meant to fix this clinical deficit by directing that competency standards be set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and military sexual trauma. But to date, no minimum competency standards have been set for non-VA mental health providers who treat veterans’ common psychological conditions. A license is all they need.

Legislation like the MISSION Act and the newly passed Commander John Scott Hannon Act (38 USC § 101) also assume that veterans who are suicidal or have mental health problems and don’t go to the VA will seek care from private sector providers. Nothing is further from the truth. Many veterans are deeply resistant to seeking mental health care no matter where that care is delivered.^4,5 Sometimes veterans believe that mental health problems are a sign of weakness and are loathe to seek help.

To address this issue, the VA pioneered models of integrated mental health and primary care services.⁶ This means that if a veteran goes to an outpatient primary care clinic at a VA medical facility or community-based outpatient clinic and discusses a mental health or substance abuse problem, the veteran can get immediate care with a mental health provider without making a separate mental health appointment. In addition, the VA already provides routine, annual screening for PTSD and sexual assault as well as depression and substance abuse at all its primary care clinics nationwide. Thanks to comprehensive screening (at a level unknown in most other health care systems) even if a veteran doesn’t spontaneously report a trauma history or mental health distress, VA is able to identify the problem and offer help right in the primary care clinic. This one-stop shopping reduces the shame and stigma of having to make an appointment with a mental health provider, allows treatment to begin immediately, and reduces no shows at follow-up appointments.

Other health care systems are trying to copy the VA model of integrated primary and mental health care, but given our fragmented insurance system, it’s not easy to replicate.⁷ According to Suzanne Gordon coauthor of the VHPI study, “This VA innovation encourages veterans, socialized by the military to conceal serious mental health problems, to get immediate help. So do many other VA programs, like peer support groups and networks. Legislation needs to strengthen, not weaken, such programs that are almost impossible to reproduce in the private sector.” Outside of VA, mental health challenges faced by veterans likely go undetected, and many veterans will not receive the care that might change, or even save, their lives.

VA best practices include an unprecedented national training initiative on 16 evidence-based psychotherapies that has been in operation for more than a decade.⁸ These high-quality treatments target debilitating conditions such as depression, PTSD, substance use disorders, insomnia, and chronic pain.^9-13 More than 12,700 VA mental health providers have received training in these evidence-based psychotherapies.

“There is no way that non-VA health care systems can ever duplicate the quality of training and supervision that has now been provided, nationally, to VA mental health professionals,” Josef Ruzek, PhD, former Director of the VA National Center for PTSD Dissemination and Training Division told me in a phone conversation (January 14, 2021). “Their program of training and implementation in the very best treatments for veteran mental health conditions stands as an international model of a complex, well-executed, large-scale program to improve mental health service delivery and improve the outcomes of treatment.”

The VA not only paid for the training of these mental health providers, but also contributed substantial efforts to assist in the implementation and sustainability of such practices. These include policy changes mandating their availability at all VA facilities, designation of local evidence-based coordinators at each medical center, and even a nationwide PTSD mentoring program to help PTSD clinic managers make organizational changes and to guide the efforts of any VA clinician seeking advice on how to engage and work with a veteran living with PTSD.¹⁴ All these incredible dissemination and implementation endeavors have resulted in a substantial overall decrease in mental health symptoms and substance misuse behaviors and increase in functional outcomes, like improvement in relationship functioning and increase in quality of life for many veterans.

As a trauma psychologist and former VA employee, I urge lawmakers to assure that veterans are not sent to private sector providers who don’t understand their unique needs and aren’t trained to serve them well, and to similarly assure that systems of care are carefully designed to meet the specific needs of veterans.