Federal Practitioner

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

Cardiovascular health should be routinely assessed and addressed in LGBTQ adults, the American Heart Association concluded in a new scientific statement.

“Among the most important takeaways from this scientific statement is the need for health care providers in clinical settings to routinely assess sexual orientation and gender identity,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.

“This will help health care providers engage LGBTQ patients in discussions about their heart health that account for the unique experiences of this population,” said Dr. Caceres, assistant professor at Columbia University, New York.

The statement was published online Oct. 8 in Circulation.
 

‘Invisible’ population

There are roughly 11 million LGBTQ adults in the United States, yet they are often “invisible in health care settings and cardiovascular research,” Dr. Caceres noted. The AHA scientific statement is the first from a national organization in the United States to comprehensively summarize the evidence on cardiovascular (CV) research in LGBTQ adults.

There is mounting evidence that LGBTQ adults experience worse CV health relative to their cisgender heterosexual peers. Disparities in CV health may be driven by unique psychosocial stressors in the LGBTQ individuals such as family rejection and anxiety of concealment of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While there is limited information on the CV health of LGBTQ people, the writing group said providers should be aware of the following:

• LGBTQ adults are more likely to use tobacco than their cisgender heterosexual peers.
• Transgender adults may be less physically active than their cisgender counterparts. Gender-affirming care might play a role in promoting physical activity among transgender people.
• Transgender women may be at increased risk for heart disease because of behavioral and clinical factors (such as the use of gender-affirming hormones like estrogen).
• Transgender women and nonbinary persons are more likely to binge drink.
• Lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of obesity than heterosexual women do.

“We need to better understand how to support LGBTQ adults in optimizing their CV health. To do this, we will need rigorous research that examines potential explanations for the CV health disparities that have been observed in LGBTQ adults,” Dr. Caceres said.

He noted that research is also needed within the LGBTQ population among groups that might be at greater risk for heart disease, including racial- and ethnic-minority and low-income LGBTQ adults.

“Researchers should also design and test evidence-based interventions to promote the heart health of LGBTQ adults. This is an area that is greatly lacking within CV health research,” said Dr. Caceres.
 

Discrimination in health care

Discrimination against LGBTQ adults in health care settings also remains a problem, the authors noted.

The writing group cites data showing that nearly 56% of sexual-minority and 70% of gender-minority adults report having experienced some form of discrimination from clinicians, including the use of harsh/abusive language.

“Perhaps most alarming,” roughly 8% of sexual-minority and 25% of transgender individuals have been denied health care by clinicians, they noted.

“LGBTQ individuals are delaying primary care and preventative visits because there is a great fear of being treated differently. Being treated differently often means receiving inadequate or inferior care because of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Dr. Caceres said in a news release.

The writing group calls for greater emphasis on LGBTQ health issues in the education of all health care providers. Dr. Caceres said it’s “paramount to include content about LGBTQ health in clinical training and licensure requirements in order to address these cardiovascular health disparities.”

Traditionally, there has been very little LGBTQ-related content in health care professional education training. A 2018 online survey of students at 10 medical schools found that approximately 80% of students did not feel competent to provide care for transgender patients.

But that may soon change. In September 2020, the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant began requiring LGBTQ curricular content, the writing group notes.

The AHA scientific statement on LGBTQ was developed by the writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Most older women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer can tolerate and should be offered surgery, and a new tool helps them decide between treatment options, the U.K. Age Gap study suggests. Findings from the study were reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

“Primary endocrine therapy is usually reserved for older, less fit, and frail women. Rates of use vary widely,” noted investigator Lynda Wyld, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“Although there is no set threshold for who is suitable, some women are undoubtedly over- and undertreated for their breast cancer,” she added.

Dr. Wyld and colleagues undertook the Age Gap study among women older than 70 years with breast cancer recruited from 56 U.K. breast units during 2013-2018.

The main goals were to determine which women can be safely offered primary endocrine therapy as nonstandard care and to develop and test a tool to help women in this age group make treatment decisions.

The first component of the study was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery. Results showed that breast cancer–specific mortality was greater with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in the entire cohort. However, breast cancer–specific mortality was lower with primary endocrine therapy than with surgery in a cohort matched with propensity scores to achieve similar age, fitness, and frailty.

The second component of the study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of women with operable breast cancer, most of whom had ER+ disease. Results showed that a decision support tool increased awareness of treatment options and readiness to decide. The tool also altered treatment choices, prompting a larger share of patients with ER+ disease to choose primary endocrine therapy.
 

Prospective cohort study

The prospective observational study was conducted in 2,854 women with ER+ disease who were eligible for surgery and treated in usual practice. Most women (n = 2,354) were treated with surgery (followed by antiestrogen therapy), while the rest received primary endocrine therapy (n = 500).

In the entire cohort, patients undergoing surgery were younger, had a lower level of comorbidity, and were less often frail. But these characteristics were generally similar in a propensity-matched cohort of 672 patients.

At a median follow-up of 52 months, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly poorer with primary endocrine therapy versus surgery in the entire cohort but not in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the entire cohort, the breast cancer–specific mortality was 9.5% with primary endocrine therapy and 4.9% with surgery. In the propensity-matched cohort, breast cancer–specific mortality was 3.1% and 6.6%, respectively.

The overall mortality was 41.8% with primary endocrine therapy and 14.6% with surgery in the entire cohort, but the gap narrowed to 34.5% and 25.6%, respectively, in the propensity-matched cohort.

In the latter, “although there is a slight divergence in overall survival and it’s likely that with longer-term follow-up this will become significant, at the moment, it isn’t,” Dr. Wyld commented.

Curves for breast cancer–specific survival basically overlapped until 5 years, when surgery started to show an advantage. The rate of locoregional recurrence or progression was low and not significantly different by treatment.

None of the women in the entire cohort died from surgery. “But it’s worth bearing in mind that these were all women selected for surgery, who were thought to be fit for it by their surgeons. The least fit women in this cohort will have obviously been offered primary endocrine therapy,” Dr. Wyld cautioned.

Although 19% of patients had a surgical complication, only 2.1% had a systemic surgical complication.
 

Cluster-randomized controlled trial

In the cluster-randomized controlled trial, researchers compared a decision support tool to usual care. The tool was developed using U.K. registry data from almost 30,000 older women and input from women in this age group on their preferred format and method of presentation, according to Dr. Wyld.

The tool consists of an algorithm available to clinicians online (for input of tumor stage and biology, comorbidities, and functional status) plus a booklet and outcome sheets for patients to take home after discussions that can be personalized to their particulars.

Intention-to-treat analyses were based on 1,339 patients with operable breast cancer, 1,161 of whom had ER+ disease. Per-protocol analyses were based on the subset of 449 patients who were offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy, presumably because they were less fit and frailer.

Results showed that, at 6 months, mean scores for global quality of life on the EORTC questionnaire did not differ between decision support and usual care in the intention-to-treat population (69.0 vs. 68.9; P = .900), but scores were more favorable with decision support in the per-protocol population (70.7 vs. 66.8; P = .044).

The tool also altered treatment choices, with a larger share of ER+ patients choosing primary endocrine therapy (21.0% vs. 15.4%; P = .029) but still having similar disease outcomes.

Although ER+ patients in the decision support group more often selected primary endocrine therapy, at a median follow-up of 36 months, the groups did not differ significantly on overall survival, cause-specific survival, or time to recurrence in either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.

Larger shares of women in the decision support group reported that they had adequate knowledge about the treatment options available to them (94% vs. 74%), were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (91% vs. 76%), knew which option they preferred (96% vs. 91%), and were ready to make a decision (99% vs. 90%).
 

Applying results to practice

“Most women over the age of 70 are relatively fit, and the aim should be to treat them with surgery,” Dr. Wyld said. “For the less fit, a point is reached where the oncology benefits of surgery disappear and surgery may just cause harm. This threshold appears to be for women in their mid-80s with moderate to poor health.”

“Use of the Age Gap online tool may enhance shared decision-making for these women while increasing knowledge. And whilst it does seem to increase the use of primary endocrine therapy, this does not seem to have an adverse impact on survival at 36 months of follow-up,” she added.

“The study by Dr. Wyld and colleagues adds to the available literature regarding the scenarios in which some treatments may be omitted without impacting overall survival in older women with breast cancer,” Lesly A. Dossett, MD, of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, commented in an interview.

In her own practice, Dr. Dossett emphasizes the generally favorable prognosis for older women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, she said. However, tools that help communicate risk and clarify the value of various therapies are welcome.

“The decision support tool appears to be a promising tool in helping to avoid treatments that are unlikely to benefit older women with breast cancer,” Dr. Dossett said. “The results will be widely applicable, as there is growing recognition that this patient population is at risk for overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research programme grant for applied research. Dr. Wyld and Dr. Dossett said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Wyld L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress. Abstract 8A and Abstract 8B.

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]