Mixed Topics

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is a rare idiopathic microangiopathy characterized by diffuse blanchable telangiectases that usually develop in late adulthood. It appears morphologically identical to generalized essential telangiectasia (GET), but skin biopsy characteristically shows dilated superficial blood vessels in the papillary dermis that are surrounded by a thickened layer of type IV collagen.¹ We report a case of CCV occurring in an elderly white man.

A 72-year-old man presented with an asymptomatic rash on the arms, legs, and abdomen of 3 years’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for hypothyroidism, hypertension, reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome, coronary artery disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. He denied any changes in medications or illnesses prior to onset of the rash. Physical examination revealed diffuse, erythematous, blanchable telangiectases on the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1). No petechiae, atrophy, or epidermal changes were appreciated. Darier sign was negative.

Skin biopsy is essential to differentiate CCV from GET, which appears morphologically identical. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be underreported as a result of clinician choice not to biopsy due to a presumptive diagnosis of GET.³ Successful treatment with a pulsed dye laser has been reported,⁷ though the extent of disease may make complete destruction of the lesions difficult to accomplish. Although it is theorized that CCV may be a marker for underlying systemic disease or even a genetic defect causing abnormal collagen deposition, its cause has yet to be ascertained.⁵ Previously reported patients have had a variety of comorbidities, including several cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus.⁶ Another patient was reported to have recently started treatment with an angiotensin receptor blocker prior to onset of CCV.⁵

Our case contributes to the small series of reported patients with this rare diagnosis and further suggests that it may be underreported at this time. Similar to previously reported cases, our patient was an elderly white individual. Although our patient had long-standing iatrogenic hypothyroidism, no recent medication changes or underlying comorbidities could be tied to the development of CCV. Further studies are needed to determine if this disease process is associated with any underlying systemic illnesses, medications, or family history.

To the Editor:

Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is a rare idiopathic microangiopathy characterized by diffuse blanchable telangiectases that usually develop in late adulthood. It appears morphologically identical to generalized essential telangiectasia (GET), but skin biopsy characteristically shows dilated superficial blood vessels in the papillary dermis that are surrounded by a thickened layer of type IV collagen.¹ We report a case of CCV occurring in an elderly white man.

A 72-year-old man presented with an asymptomatic rash on the arms, legs, and abdomen of 3 years’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for hypothyroidism, hypertension, reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome, coronary artery disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. He denied any changes in medications or illnesses prior to onset of the rash. Physical examination revealed diffuse, erythematous, blanchable telangiectases on the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1). No petechiae, atrophy, or epidermal changes were appreciated. Darier sign was negative.

Skin biopsy is essential to differentiate CCV from GET, which appears morphologically identical. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be underreported as a result of clinician choice not to biopsy due to a presumptive diagnosis of GET.³ Successful treatment with a pulsed dye laser has been reported,⁷ though the extent of disease may make complete destruction of the lesions difficult to accomplish. Although it is theorized that CCV may be a marker for underlying systemic disease or even a genetic defect causing abnormal collagen deposition, its cause has yet to be ascertained.⁵ Previously reported patients have had a variety of comorbidities, including several cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus.⁶ Another patient was reported to have recently started treatment with an angiotensin receptor blocker prior to onset of CCV.⁵

Our case contributes to the small series of reported patients with this rare diagnosis and further suggests that it may be underreported at this time. Similar to previously reported cases, our patient was an elderly white individual. Although our patient had long-standing iatrogenic hypothyroidism, no recent medication changes or underlying comorbidities could be tied to the development of CCV. Further studies are needed to determine if this disease process is associated with any underlying systemic illnesses, medications, or family history.

To the Editor:

Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy (CCV) is a rare idiopathic microangiopathy characterized by diffuse blanchable telangiectases that usually develop in late adulthood. It appears morphologically identical to generalized essential telangiectasia (GET), but skin biopsy characteristically shows dilated superficial blood vessels in the papillary dermis that are surrounded by a thickened layer of type IV collagen.¹ We report a case of CCV occurring in an elderly white man.

A 72-year-old man presented with an asymptomatic rash on the arms, legs, and abdomen of 3 years’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for hypothyroidism, hypertension, reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome, coronary artery disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. He denied any changes in medications or illnesses prior to onset of the rash. Physical examination revealed diffuse, erythematous, blanchable telangiectases on the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1). No petechiae, atrophy, or epidermal changes were appreciated. Darier sign was negative.

Skin biopsy is essential to differentiate CCV from GET, which appears morphologically identical. Cutaneous collagenous vasculopathy may be underreported as a result of clinician choice not to biopsy due to a presumptive diagnosis of GET.³ Successful treatment with a pulsed dye laser has been reported,⁷ though the extent of disease may make complete destruction of the lesions difficult to accomplish. Although it is theorized that CCV may be a marker for underlying systemic disease or even a genetic defect causing abnormal collagen deposition, its cause has yet to be ascertained.⁵ Previously reported patients have had a variety of comorbidities, including several cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus.⁶ Another patient was reported to have recently started treatment with an angiotensin receptor blocker prior to onset of CCV.⁵

Our case contributes to the small series of reported patients with this rare diagnosis and further suggests that it may be underreported at this time. Similar to previously reported cases, our patient was an elderly white individual. Although our patient had long-standing iatrogenic hypothyroidism, no recent medication changes or underlying comorbidities could be tied to the development of CCV. Further studies are needed to determine if this disease process is associated with any underlying systemic illnesses, medications, or family history.

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital, HealthPartners, in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners, is the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), which will be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, sat down with the Hospitalist to discuss the role of the course director in formulating the HM20 agenda, as well as highlighting some exciting educational sessions, workshops, and other events during the annual conference.

In your role as course director for HM20, did you have a particular theme you wanted to emphasize?

We did not go with a single theme, because we’re trying to provide a comprehensive educational and networking opportunity, so trying to focus the conference on a single theme a year in advance did not seem very prudent. There are multiple themes, from health disparities to technology to education. For a field like hospital medicine that’s rapidly evolving, we thought it best to keep it open and instead further develop the conference tracks: What new tracks can be created, what older tracks can be maintained because they have been highly successful, and which tracks do we retire?

Can you discuss some of the tracks at HM20?

The new track we have this year is the Technology track. That track will examine current and future technology that will impact care delivery, including telehealth, wearables, apps for digital learning, and for clinicians at the bedside. Innovation is at the core of hospital medicine, and we’re constantly exploring how to deliver efficient, timely, and effective care. “Future-casting” is important, and this track speaks to that.

There are some old standards that I would also recommend. The “Great Debate” is one of the hardest to finalize, because while you can create a great session topic and title, we need to find two talented speakers for a debate, as that is very different than a presentation. The speakers take opposing sides on clinical decisions, the latest literature reviews, best practices, and the audience gets to vote. Topics we’re using this year include “Procalcitonin: Friend or Foe,” “Guidelines Controversies in Inpatient Care,” and “POCUS vs. Physical Exam – Tech vs. Tradition.” Some of the debaters include Carrie Herzke, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Daniel Dressler, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta; Jordan Messler, MD, of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla.; and Michelle Guidry, MD, of the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System and Tulane University, both in New Orleans; Ria Dancel, MD, from the University of North Carolina, and Michael Janjigian, MD, from NYU Langone Health.

One of the highlights this year is that we’re trying to bring more gender equity into our speaker lineup. Rarely will we have only two male speakers at a session, and I don’t think we have any all-male panels, jokingly called “manels” in the past.

Are there some “tried-and-true” tracks or sessions that are returning in HM20?

I’d like to highlight the Clinical Mastery track. That was a new track last year, and has returned this year. That track is focused on helping hospitalists become expert diagnosticians at the bedside. “Pitfalls, Myths and Pearls in Diagnostic Reasoning” is one session to note in that track, with Dr. Gopi Astik, Dr. Andrew Olson, and Dr. Reza Manesh. Another special focus this year within Clinical Mastery will be on using the rational clinical exam to augment your diagnostic skills.

When programming the annual conference, how do you balance the needs of community hospitalists with academic hospitalists?

The value we have on the annual conference committee is that there are a fair number of community hospitalists, advance practice clinicians, representation from med-peds, and family practice, for instance. Generally, there is a wide sampling of the decision makers from across the specialty helping to program the conference – we have great academic institutions, but we have representation from the larger impressive community as well. That said, it is hard to curate content that is solely for a specific subset of hospitalists without marginalizing other subsets. We don’t want to isolate people. A lot of our Rapid Fire topics are geared toward frontline hospitalists. This is content that will directly impact hospitalists as they care for patients. And some of the content that we’re bringing in this year with more emphasis are in health equity and disparities. Academic groups study this, however frontline clinicians from both academic and community settings deal with this every day, relating to both patients and staff. For example, in regard to patients, we have content focused on caring for the LGBTQ community, sessions on refugee health, as well as hospitalists and global health. We have an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, with speakers from both community and academic settings. There will be good sessions with gender equity themes, practical tips in promotion and hiring practices. There are a couple workshops on gender equity; one to note is “Top 10 Ways for Men + Women to Engage in Gender Equity.”

Can you speak to the content that is targeted at nurse practitioners and physician assistants?

This is near and dear to my heart as I’m from an institution that has a positive history of strong partnerships with our advance practice clinician colleagues. Our goal this year was to continue to highlight nurse practitioners and physician assistants in a track dedicated to them. We have a core session called “Training Day: How to Onboard and Operationalize an Advanced Practice Provider Workforce” – this is a “bread-and-butter” session presented by speakers who have built programs from the ground up. Other important sessions address how to advance the careers of NPs and PAs – “Professional Development for NP/PAs” – and on mentorship, which emphasizes a culture of partnership on projects like providing high quality, safe care.

Are there any workshops that attendees should take note of?

One I would like to highlight is “Survive! The POCUS Apocalypse Adventure.” This highly anticipated offering is preregistration required, hosted for the first time on day 1 of the main conference. The workshop will introduce the gamification of POCUS to hospitalists. Each participant will be expected to perform ultrasound examinations and interpret their findings in order to gather clues that will lead to the cure for a zombie apocalypse! There are a lot of innovations this year in programming the Annual Conference, and gamification might be considered risky but I think it has a very good chance of success with entertainment and learning combined into one amazing workshop.

What are some other innovations that the annual conference committee has planned for 2020?

Another exciting innovation is what we call “Breakfast with an Expert.” This is a new rapid-fire didactic session format where we have three experts speak on different hot topics, such as “Nutritional Counseling” (led by Kate Shafto, MD), “Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career” (Brad Sharpe, MD), and “Case-Based Controversies in Ethics” (Hannah Lipman, MD). These take place on the very first day of the conference, before the opening general session. Attendees can grab their breakfast and listen to any of these sessions before they head into the plenary. Hospitalists have asked for more content, so we’re adding these as a response to that hunger for more educational content. This format is supposed to be a bit cozier, with more Q&A.

Another aspect of HM20 to highlight is the Simulation Center. The Sim Center is a space that hosts a variety of hospital medicine skill development areas. This is an interactive center where attendees can learn to perform bedside procedures and learn hands-on skills with diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during the first 2 days of the conference. The Sim Center is slightly different than the precourses, in that we are offering 1-hour blocks of small-group instruction for which attendees preregister. This aligns with larger SHM efforts to encourage hospitalists to be more confident with bedside procedures, and engage with SHM’s ultrasound offerings, including the certificate of completion program.

To register for the 2020 Annual Conference, including precourses, visit https://shmannualconference.org/register/.

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital, HealthPartners, in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners, is the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), which will be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, sat down with the Hospitalist to discuss the role of the course director in formulating the HM20 agenda, as well as highlighting some exciting educational sessions, workshops, and other events during the annual conference.

In your role as course director for HM20, did you have a particular theme you wanted to emphasize?

We did not go with a single theme, because we’re trying to provide a comprehensive educational and networking opportunity, so trying to focus the conference on a single theme a year in advance did not seem very prudent. There are multiple themes, from health disparities to technology to education. For a field like hospital medicine that’s rapidly evolving, we thought it best to keep it open and instead further develop the conference tracks: What new tracks can be created, what older tracks can be maintained because they have been highly successful, and which tracks do we retire?

Can you discuss some of the tracks at HM20?

The new track we have this year is the Technology track. That track will examine current and future technology that will impact care delivery, including telehealth, wearables, apps for digital learning, and for clinicians at the bedside. Innovation is at the core of hospital medicine, and we’re constantly exploring how to deliver efficient, timely, and effective care. “Future-casting” is important, and this track speaks to that.

There are some old standards that I would also recommend. The “Great Debate” is one of the hardest to finalize, because while you can create a great session topic and title, we need to find two talented speakers for a debate, as that is very different than a presentation. The speakers take opposing sides on clinical decisions, the latest literature reviews, best practices, and the audience gets to vote. Topics we’re using this year include “Procalcitonin: Friend or Foe,” “Guidelines Controversies in Inpatient Care,” and “POCUS vs. Physical Exam – Tech vs. Tradition.” Some of the debaters include Carrie Herzke, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Daniel Dressler, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta; Jordan Messler, MD, of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla.; and Michelle Guidry, MD, of the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System and Tulane University, both in New Orleans; Ria Dancel, MD, from the University of North Carolina, and Michael Janjigian, MD, from NYU Langone Health.

One of the highlights this year is that we’re trying to bring more gender equity into our speaker lineup. Rarely will we have only two male speakers at a session, and I don’t think we have any all-male panels, jokingly called “manels” in the past.

Are there some “tried-and-true” tracks or sessions that are returning in HM20?

I’d like to highlight the Clinical Mastery track. That was a new track last year, and has returned this year. That track is focused on helping hospitalists become expert diagnosticians at the bedside. “Pitfalls, Myths and Pearls in Diagnostic Reasoning” is one session to note in that track, with Dr. Gopi Astik, Dr. Andrew Olson, and Dr. Reza Manesh. Another special focus this year within Clinical Mastery will be on using the rational clinical exam to augment your diagnostic skills.

When programming the annual conference, how do you balance the needs of community hospitalists with academic hospitalists?

The value we have on the annual conference committee is that there are a fair number of community hospitalists, advance practice clinicians, representation from med-peds, and family practice, for instance. Generally, there is a wide sampling of the decision makers from across the specialty helping to program the conference – we have great academic institutions, but we have representation from the larger impressive community as well. That said, it is hard to curate content that is solely for a specific subset of hospitalists without marginalizing other subsets. We don’t want to isolate people. A lot of our Rapid Fire topics are geared toward frontline hospitalists. This is content that will directly impact hospitalists as they care for patients. And some of the content that we’re bringing in this year with more emphasis are in health equity and disparities. Academic groups study this, however frontline clinicians from both academic and community settings deal with this every day, relating to both patients and staff. For example, in regard to patients, we have content focused on caring for the LGBTQ community, sessions on refugee health, as well as hospitalists and global health. We have an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, with speakers from both community and academic settings. There will be good sessions with gender equity themes, practical tips in promotion and hiring practices. There are a couple workshops on gender equity; one to note is “Top 10 Ways for Men + Women to Engage in Gender Equity.”

Can you speak to the content that is targeted at nurse practitioners and physician assistants?

This is near and dear to my heart as I’m from an institution that has a positive history of strong partnerships with our advance practice clinician colleagues. Our goal this year was to continue to highlight nurse practitioners and physician assistants in a track dedicated to them. We have a core session called “Training Day: How to Onboard and Operationalize an Advanced Practice Provider Workforce” – this is a “bread-and-butter” session presented by speakers who have built programs from the ground up. Other important sessions address how to advance the careers of NPs and PAs – “Professional Development for NP/PAs” – and on mentorship, which emphasizes a culture of partnership on projects like providing high quality, safe care.

Are there any workshops that attendees should take note of?

One I would like to highlight is “Survive! The POCUS Apocalypse Adventure.” This highly anticipated offering is preregistration required, hosted for the first time on day 1 of the main conference. The workshop will introduce the gamification of POCUS to hospitalists. Each participant will be expected to perform ultrasound examinations and interpret their findings in order to gather clues that will lead to the cure for a zombie apocalypse! There are a lot of innovations this year in programming the Annual Conference, and gamification might be considered risky but I think it has a very good chance of success with entertainment and learning combined into one amazing workshop.

What are some other innovations that the annual conference committee has planned for 2020?

Another exciting innovation is what we call “Breakfast with an Expert.” This is a new rapid-fire didactic session format where we have three experts speak on different hot topics, such as “Nutritional Counseling” (led by Kate Shafto, MD), “Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career” (Brad Sharpe, MD), and “Case-Based Controversies in Ethics” (Hannah Lipman, MD). These take place on the very first day of the conference, before the opening general session. Attendees can grab their breakfast and listen to any of these sessions before they head into the plenary. Hospitalists have asked for more content, so we’re adding these as a response to that hunger for more educational content. This format is supposed to be a bit cozier, with more Q&A.

Another aspect of HM20 to highlight is the Simulation Center. The Sim Center is a space that hosts a variety of hospital medicine skill development areas. This is an interactive center where attendees can learn to perform bedside procedures and learn hands-on skills with diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during the first 2 days of the conference. The Sim Center is slightly different than the precourses, in that we are offering 1-hour blocks of small-group instruction for which attendees preregister. This aligns with larger SHM efforts to encourage hospitalists to be more confident with bedside procedures, and engage with SHM’s ultrasound offerings, including the certificate of completion program.

To register for the 2020 Annual Conference, including precourses, visit https://shmannualconference.org/register/.

Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM, CLHM, chief of hospital medicine at Regions Hospital, HealthPartners, in St. Paul, Minn., and director of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for hospital medicine at HealthPartners, is the course director for the Society of Hospital Medicine’s 2020 Annual Conference (HM20), which will be held April 16-18 in San Diego.

Dr. Mathews, also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, sat down with the Hospitalist to discuss the role of the course director in formulating the HM20 agenda, as well as highlighting some exciting educational sessions, workshops, and other events during the annual conference.

In your role as course director for HM20, did you have a particular theme you wanted to emphasize?

We did not go with a single theme, because we’re trying to provide a comprehensive educational and networking opportunity, so trying to focus the conference on a single theme a year in advance did not seem very prudent. There are multiple themes, from health disparities to technology to education. For a field like hospital medicine that’s rapidly evolving, we thought it best to keep it open and instead further develop the conference tracks: What new tracks can be created, what older tracks can be maintained because they have been highly successful, and which tracks do we retire?

Can you discuss some of the tracks at HM20?

The new track we have this year is the Technology track. That track will examine current and future technology that will impact care delivery, including telehealth, wearables, apps for digital learning, and for clinicians at the bedside. Innovation is at the core of hospital medicine, and we’re constantly exploring how to deliver efficient, timely, and effective care. “Future-casting” is important, and this track speaks to that.

There are some old standards that I would also recommend. The “Great Debate” is one of the hardest to finalize, because while you can create a great session topic and title, we need to find two talented speakers for a debate, as that is very different than a presentation. The speakers take opposing sides on clinical decisions, the latest literature reviews, best practices, and the audience gets to vote. Topics we’re using this year include “Procalcitonin: Friend or Foe,” “Guidelines Controversies in Inpatient Care,” and “POCUS vs. Physical Exam – Tech vs. Tradition.” Some of the debaters include Carrie Herzke, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Daniel Dressler, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta; Jordan Messler, MD, of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla.; and Michelle Guidry, MD, of the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System and Tulane University, both in New Orleans; Ria Dancel, MD, from the University of North Carolina, and Michael Janjigian, MD, from NYU Langone Health.

One of the highlights this year is that we’re trying to bring more gender equity into our speaker lineup. Rarely will we have only two male speakers at a session, and I don’t think we have any all-male panels, jokingly called “manels” in the past.

Are there some “tried-and-true” tracks or sessions that are returning in HM20?

I’d like to highlight the Clinical Mastery track. That was a new track last year, and has returned this year. That track is focused on helping hospitalists become expert diagnosticians at the bedside. “Pitfalls, Myths and Pearls in Diagnostic Reasoning” is one session to note in that track, with Dr. Gopi Astik, Dr. Andrew Olson, and Dr. Reza Manesh. Another special focus this year within Clinical Mastery will be on using the rational clinical exam to augment your diagnostic skills.

When programming the annual conference, how do you balance the needs of community hospitalists with academic hospitalists?

The value we have on the annual conference committee is that there are a fair number of community hospitalists, advance practice clinicians, representation from med-peds, and family practice, for instance. Generally, there is a wide sampling of the decision makers from across the specialty helping to program the conference – we have great academic institutions, but we have representation from the larger impressive community as well. That said, it is hard to curate content that is solely for a specific subset of hospitalists without marginalizing other subsets. We don’t want to isolate people. A lot of our Rapid Fire topics are geared toward frontline hospitalists. This is content that will directly impact hospitalists as they care for patients. And some of the content that we’re bringing in this year with more emphasis are in health equity and disparities. Academic groups study this, however frontline clinicians from both academic and community settings deal with this every day, relating to both patients and staff. For example, in regard to patients, we have content focused on caring for the LGBTQ community, sessions on refugee health, as well as hospitalists and global health. We have an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, with speakers from both community and academic settings. There will be good sessions with gender equity themes, practical tips in promotion and hiring practices. There are a couple workshops on gender equity; one to note is “Top 10 Ways for Men + Women to Engage in Gender Equity.”

Can you speak to the content that is targeted at nurse practitioners and physician assistants?

This is near and dear to my heart as I’m from an institution that has a positive history of strong partnerships with our advance practice clinician colleagues. Our goal this year was to continue to highlight nurse practitioners and physician assistants in a track dedicated to them. We have a core session called “Training Day: How to Onboard and Operationalize an Advanced Practice Provider Workforce” – this is a “bread-and-butter” session presented by speakers who have built programs from the ground up. Other important sessions address how to advance the careers of NPs and PAs – “Professional Development for NP/PAs” – and on mentorship, which emphasizes a culture of partnership on projects like providing high quality, safe care.

Are there any workshops that attendees should take note of?

One I would like to highlight is “Survive! The POCUS Apocalypse Adventure.” This highly anticipated offering is preregistration required, hosted for the first time on day 1 of the main conference. The workshop will introduce the gamification of POCUS to hospitalists. Each participant will be expected to perform ultrasound examinations and interpret their findings in order to gather clues that will lead to the cure for a zombie apocalypse! There are a lot of innovations this year in programming the Annual Conference, and gamification might be considered risky but I think it has a very good chance of success with entertainment and learning combined into one amazing workshop.

What are some other innovations that the annual conference committee has planned for 2020?

Another exciting innovation is what we call “Breakfast with an Expert.” This is a new rapid-fire didactic session format where we have three experts speak on different hot topics, such as “Nutritional Counseling” (led by Kate Shafto, MD), “Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career” (Brad Sharpe, MD), and “Case-Based Controversies in Ethics” (Hannah Lipman, MD). These take place on the very first day of the conference, before the opening general session. Attendees can grab their breakfast and listen to any of these sessions before they head into the plenary. Hospitalists have asked for more content, so we’re adding these as a response to that hunger for more educational content. This format is supposed to be a bit cozier, with more Q&A.

Another aspect of HM20 to highlight is the Simulation Center. The Sim Center is a space that hosts a variety of hospital medicine skill development areas. This is an interactive center where attendees can learn to perform bedside procedures and learn hands-on skills with diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during the first 2 days of the conference. The Sim Center is slightly different than the precourses, in that we are offering 1-hour blocks of small-group instruction for which attendees preregister. This aligns with larger SHM efforts to encourage hospitalists to be more confident with bedside procedures, and engage with SHM’s ultrasound offerings, including the certificate of completion program.

To register for the 2020 Annual Conference, including precourses, visit https://shmannualconference.org/register/.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

It’s an honor and a great pleasure to take on this new role as editor in chief for Hematology News. When I got the call from our outgoing editor Matt Kalaycio, MD, a year ago asking me to consider stepping into his shoes a few things flashed through my mind. Will I do this role justice? Do I have what it takes to be a great editor in chief?

Then I thought – will there be time to learn the ropes or will this be like most of my career positions where you jump into the water first and figure out how to swim later? I never once thought: “Oh no … I cannot do this and I’m going to say no!” So here I am today, reporting for duty as the editor in chief of Hematology News.

I was once accused of being “intellectually restless” which is a badge I wear with honor and is perhaps a trait I learned from my mom who was a public health nurse in Nigeria back in the seventies. She broke a lot of glass ceilings in her day – Cornell University–trained advanced practice nurse, mother of five girls, with a degree in textile and design and business accounting. She also got a certificate in baking and cake decorating and she used all her skills and certifications to raise her daughters to believe the sky was the limit.

Mom started one of the first licensed practical nursing (LPN) schools in Nigeria and I learned from her to never back down from a challenge – on a dare I got my LPN certification before I went to medical school.

You see I love a challenge and an adventure and serving as the editor in chief for Hematology News provides me with an amazing platform and opportunity to achieve a lot of firsts and satisfy that hunger to make a global difference that has always guided my career.

I’ve thought long and hard about what and how I envision this role shaping out. What do I want our readers to take away from this newspaper under my leadership? What common themes will be woven in every edition? I want our readers to be challenged and keep learning. Not just about hematologic disorders and the latest scientific breakthroughs that drive improved patient outcomes for blood disorders but also about the intersectionality between hematology and other life disciplines.

I remember taking an art class in high school learning about dimensions and proportions of buildings and I dreamt of becoming an architect. Fast forward 2 decades later, I attended a medical conference at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and was enthralled at how various sessions demonstrated how art, engineering and architecture played a role in the development and design of orthopedic prosthesis used in amputees. I learned how engineering shaped our understanding of microfluidics, something that is now being leveraged in drug delivery science and in the field of hematology.

I want our readers to keep learning not just from esteemed scientists and clinicians but from various stakeholders – the patient, the high school student, the spouse of the hematologist, not to mention our residents and fellows, who are the future of our discipline. Furthermore, I want our readers to see the human side of hematology – the face behind the scientist or clinician and the reality of what joys and tolls we experience in this field.

A Fall 2019 Medscape survey cited the prevalence of physician burnout among hematology oncology physicians: 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed. These are statistics that cannot be ignored or minimized a they ultimately have a profound impact on patient outcomes. You see, I really believe that much of the success we have in healing our patients relies not just on the medications we prescribe or on the procedures we perform or the science we leverage. Much of healing in medicine and in hematology is based on the secret sauce of being humane – defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as the character trait that is “marked by demonstrating compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.”

So, to sum up what to expect in the coming year from your editor in chief? Look out for some thought-provoking, fun, and unusual perspectives that are aimed to keep us learning, growing, and remaining humane in our interactions with our patients, each other, but more importantly with ourselves. #bringit2020 #HematologyNews #NewEditorInChiefPerspectives.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

It’s an honor and a great pleasure to take on this new role as editor in chief for Hematology News. When I got the call from our outgoing editor Matt Kalaycio, MD, a year ago asking me to consider stepping into his shoes a few things flashed through my mind. Will I do this role justice? Do I have what it takes to be a great editor in chief?

Then I thought – will there be time to learn the ropes or will this be like most of my career positions where you jump into the water first and figure out how to swim later? I never once thought: “Oh no … I cannot do this and I’m going to say no!” So here I am today, reporting for duty as the editor in chief of Hematology News.

I was once accused of being “intellectually restless” which is a badge I wear with honor and is perhaps a trait I learned from my mom who was a public health nurse in Nigeria back in the seventies. She broke a lot of glass ceilings in her day – Cornell University–trained advanced practice nurse, mother of five girls, with a degree in textile and design and business accounting. She also got a certificate in baking and cake decorating and she used all her skills and certifications to raise her daughters to believe the sky was the limit.

Mom started one of the first licensed practical nursing (LPN) schools in Nigeria and I learned from her to never back down from a challenge – on a dare I got my LPN certification before I went to medical school.

You see I love a challenge and an adventure and serving as the editor in chief for Hematology News provides me with an amazing platform and opportunity to achieve a lot of firsts and satisfy that hunger to make a global difference that has always guided my career.

I’ve thought long and hard about what and how I envision this role shaping out. What do I want our readers to take away from this newspaper under my leadership? What common themes will be woven in every edition? I want our readers to be challenged and keep learning. Not just about hematologic disorders and the latest scientific breakthroughs that drive improved patient outcomes for blood disorders but also about the intersectionality between hematology and other life disciplines.

I remember taking an art class in high school learning about dimensions and proportions of buildings and I dreamt of becoming an architect. Fast forward 2 decades later, I attended a medical conference at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and was enthralled at how various sessions demonstrated how art, engineering and architecture played a role in the development and design of orthopedic prosthesis used in amputees. I learned how engineering shaped our understanding of microfluidics, something that is now being leveraged in drug delivery science and in the field of hematology.

I want our readers to keep learning not just from esteemed scientists and clinicians but from various stakeholders – the patient, the high school student, the spouse of the hematologist, not to mention our residents and fellows, who are the future of our discipline. Furthermore, I want our readers to see the human side of hematology – the face behind the scientist or clinician and the reality of what joys and tolls we experience in this field.

A Fall 2019 Medscape survey cited the prevalence of physician burnout among hematology oncology physicians: 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed. These are statistics that cannot be ignored or minimized a they ultimately have a profound impact on patient outcomes. You see, I really believe that much of the success we have in healing our patients relies not just on the medications we prescribe or on the procedures we perform or the science we leverage. Much of healing in medicine and in hematology is based on the secret sauce of being humane – defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as the character trait that is “marked by demonstrating compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.”

So, to sum up what to expect in the coming year from your editor in chief? Look out for some thought-provoking, fun, and unusual perspectives that are aimed to keep us learning, growing, and remaining humane in our interactions with our patients, each other, but more importantly with ourselves. #bringit2020 #HematologyNews #NewEditorInChiefPerspectives.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

It’s an honor and a great pleasure to take on this new role as editor in chief for Hematology News. When I got the call from our outgoing editor Matt Kalaycio, MD, a year ago asking me to consider stepping into his shoes a few things flashed through my mind. Will I do this role justice? Do I have what it takes to be a great editor in chief?

Then I thought – will there be time to learn the ropes or will this be like most of my career positions where you jump into the water first and figure out how to swim later? I never once thought: “Oh no … I cannot do this and I’m going to say no!” So here I am today, reporting for duty as the editor in chief of Hematology News.

I was once accused of being “intellectually restless” which is a badge I wear with honor and is perhaps a trait I learned from my mom who was a public health nurse in Nigeria back in the seventies. She broke a lot of glass ceilings in her day – Cornell University–trained advanced practice nurse, mother of five girls, with a degree in textile and design and business accounting. She also got a certificate in baking and cake decorating and she used all her skills and certifications to raise her daughters to believe the sky was the limit.

Mom started one of the first licensed practical nursing (LPN) schools in Nigeria and I learned from her to never back down from a challenge – on a dare I got my LPN certification before I went to medical school.

You see I love a challenge and an adventure and serving as the editor in chief for Hematology News provides me with an amazing platform and opportunity to achieve a lot of firsts and satisfy that hunger to make a global difference that has always guided my career.

I’ve thought long and hard about what and how I envision this role shaping out. What do I want our readers to take away from this newspaper under my leadership? What common themes will be woven in every edition? I want our readers to be challenged and keep learning. Not just about hematologic disorders and the latest scientific breakthroughs that drive improved patient outcomes for blood disorders but also about the intersectionality between hematology and other life disciplines.

I remember taking an art class in high school learning about dimensions and proportions of buildings and I dreamt of becoming an architect. Fast forward 2 decades later, I attended a medical conference at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and was enthralled at how various sessions demonstrated how art, engineering and architecture played a role in the development and design of orthopedic prosthesis used in amputees. I learned how engineering shaped our understanding of microfluidics, something that is now being leveraged in drug delivery science and in the field of hematology.

I want our readers to keep learning not just from esteemed scientists and clinicians but from various stakeholders – the patient, the high school student, the spouse of the hematologist, not to mention our residents and fellows, who are the future of our discipline. Furthermore, I want our readers to see the human side of hematology – the face behind the scientist or clinician and the reality of what joys and tolls we experience in this field.

A Fall 2019 Medscape survey cited the prevalence of physician burnout among hematology oncology physicians: 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed. These are statistics that cannot be ignored or minimized a they ultimately have a profound impact on patient outcomes. You see, I really believe that much of the success we have in healing our patients relies not just on the medications we prescribe or on the procedures we perform or the science we leverage. Much of healing in medicine and in hematology is based on the secret sauce of being humane – defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as the character trait that is “marked by demonstrating compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.”

So, to sum up what to expect in the coming year from your editor in chief? Look out for some thought-provoking, fun, and unusual perspectives that are aimed to keep us learning, growing, and remaining humane in our interactions with our patients, each other, but more importantly with ourselves. #bringit2020 #HematologyNews #NewEditorInChiefPerspectives.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors have higher standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) than the general population but lower ratios than childhood cancer survivors, according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Xavier_S/Thinkstock

At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.

Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.

The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.

For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).

These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”

In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”

Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors have higher standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) than the general population but lower ratios than childhood cancer survivors, according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Xavier_S/Thinkstock

At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.

Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.

The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.

For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).

These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”

In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”

Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors have higher standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) than the general population but lower ratios than childhood cancer survivors, according to data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Xavier_S/Thinkstock

At a median follow-up of 21 years, the SMR for all-cause mortality was 5.9 among survivors aged 15-20 years and 6.2 among diagnosis-matched children under 15 years, compared with expected rates at the same ages in the general population. For health-related causes – excluding primary cancer recurrence or progression but including late effects of cancer therapy – the SMRs were 4.8 in the older group and 6.8 in the younger group.

Eugene Suh, MD, of Loyola University Chicago Medical Center, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported these results in Lancet Oncology.

The difference between the older and younger survivors (n = 5,804 in each group) was most evident at least 20 years after cancer diagnosis, the authors noted.

For both groups, but more so for childhood cancer survivors, the risk of developing any chronic health condition and any grade 3-5 health condition was greater than for siblings of the same age who did not have cancer (hazard ratios, 4.2 for adolescents/young adults and 5.6 for childhood survivors). The same was true for grade 3-5 cardiac conditions (HRs, 4.3 and 5.6, respectively), endocrine conditions (HRs, 3.9 and 6.4, respectively), and musculoskeletal conditions (HRs, 6.5 and 8.0, respectively).

These findings, which confirm those of previous studies suggesting that younger children might be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of cancer treatment, “underscore that focused efforts are needed to ensure early-adolescent and young adult cancer survivors are receiving recommended risk-based care, with a focus on high-risk cancer screening, to reduce morbidity and premature mortality,” the researchers concluded, noting that “studies to date indicate that adherence to such high-risk screening is poor.”

In a related editorial, Päivi Lähteenmäki, MD, PhD, of University of Turku (Finland) and Turku University Hospital, wrote that these findings warrant long-term follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. She also argued that the results “might not be fully generalizable to patients treated today who might be on different treatment regimens to those treated in previous decades” and that “[m]ore prospectively collected objective data focusing on survivors ... are needed.”

Accurate characterization of patients at high risk who would benefit from a tailored screening program is most important, and identifying underlying genetic or molecular factors that confer higher risk for late sequelae would be useful for “planning approaches to survivorship,” Dr. Lähteenmäki added.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. Dr. Suh and Dr. Lähteenmäki reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Suh E et al. Lancet Oncology. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9;Lähteenmäki P. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.106/S1470-2045(19)30858-7.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

A higher lifetime number of sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer in older adults, according to a recent study.

Additionally, among women, having had more lifetime partners was linked to higher odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition.

Igor Grabovac, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues reported these results in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The exploratory analysis included 2,537 men and 3,185 women, aged 50 years and older, who were a part of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. The mean age of study subjects was 64 years in men and 65 years in women, and most were either married or cohabitating.

Researchers collected data on sexual history using a self-administered questionnaire, which privately recorded the lifetime number of sexual partners among study participants. Data on other health outcomes, such as limiting long-standing illness and cancer diagnoses, were also self-reported.

Among male participants, 28.5% reported a history of 0-1 lifetime sexual partners, 29.0% had 2-4 partners, 20.2% had 5-9 partners, and 22.2% had 10 or more partners. The respective measures in women were 40.8%, 35.5%, 15.8%, and 7.8%.

Among all participants, a greater number of sexual partners was associated with being single, younger age, and being in the least or greatest brackets of household income.

The researchers found that, compared with having 0-1 sexual partners, a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of reported cancer in both men (odds ratio, 1.69; P = .047) and women (OR, 1.91; P = .038).

In addition, women with a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners had greater odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition (OR, 1.64; P = .007).

“We observed no statistically significant association between number of lifetime sexual partners and self-rated health, CHD [coronary heart disease], or stroke in either sex, or with limiting long-standing illness in men,” the researchers explained.

They acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the self-reported nature of the data. As a result, further studies are required to establish causality.

“Sexual history may be a relevant clinical indicator for cancer risk in older patients,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Grabovac I et al. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200352.

A higher lifetime number of sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer in older adults, according to a recent study.

Additionally, among women, having had more lifetime partners was linked to higher odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition.

Igor Grabovac, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues reported these results in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The exploratory analysis included 2,537 men and 3,185 women, aged 50 years and older, who were a part of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. The mean age of study subjects was 64 years in men and 65 years in women, and most were either married or cohabitating.

Researchers collected data on sexual history using a self-administered questionnaire, which privately recorded the lifetime number of sexual partners among study participants. Data on other health outcomes, such as limiting long-standing illness and cancer diagnoses, were also self-reported.

Among male participants, 28.5% reported a history of 0-1 lifetime sexual partners, 29.0% had 2-4 partners, 20.2% had 5-9 partners, and 22.2% had 10 or more partners. The respective measures in women were 40.8%, 35.5%, 15.8%, and 7.8%.

Among all participants, a greater number of sexual partners was associated with being single, younger age, and being in the least or greatest brackets of household income.

The researchers found that, compared with having 0-1 sexual partners, a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of reported cancer in both men (odds ratio, 1.69; P = .047) and women (OR, 1.91; P = .038).

In addition, women with a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners had greater odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition (OR, 1.64; P = .007).

“We observed no statistically significant association between number of lifetime sexual partners and self-rated health, CHD [coronary heart disease], or stroke in either sex, or with limiting long-standing illness in men,” the researchers explained.

They acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the self-reported nature of the data. As a result, further studies are required to establish causality.

“Sexual history may be a relevant clinical indicator for cancer risk in older patients,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Grabovac I et al. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200352.

A higher lifetime number of sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer in older adults, according to a recent study.

Additionally, among women, having had more lifetime partners was linked to higher odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition.

Igor Grabovac, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues reported these results in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The exploratory analysis included 2,537 men and 3,185 women, aged 50 years and older, who were a part of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. The mean age of study subjects was 64 years in men and 65 years in women, and most were either married or cohabitating.

Researchers collected data on sexual history using a self-administered questionnaire, which privately recorded the lifetime number of sexual partners among study participants. Data on other health outcomes, such as limiting long-standing illness and cancer diagnoses, were also self-reported.

Among male participants, 28.5% reported a history of 0-1 lifetime sexual partners, 29.0% had 2-4 partners, 20.2% had 5-9 partners, and 22.2% had 10 or more partners. The respective measures in women were 40.8%, 35.5%, 15.8%, and 7.8%.

Among all participants, a greater number of sexual partners was associated with being single, younger age, and being in the least or greatest brackets of household income.

The researchers found that, compared with having 0-1 sexual partners, a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners was associated with a greater risk of reported cancer in both men (odds ratio, 1.69; P = .047) and women (OR, 1.91; P = .038).

In addition, women with a lifetime history of 10 or more sexual partners had greater odds of reporting a limiting long-standing condition (OR, 1.64; P = .007).

“We observed no statistically significant association between number of lifetime sexual partners and self-rated health, CHD [coronary heart disease], or stroke in either sex, or with limiting long-standing illness in men,” the researchers explained.

They acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the self-reported nature of the data. As a result, further studies are required to establish causality.

“Sexual history may be a relevant clinical indicator for cancer risk in older patients,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Grabovac I et al. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200352.