Mixed Topics

A new study has found that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who take oral anticoagulants and then suffer from lower GI bleeding have a much higher risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

“Our data indicate that lower GI bleeding in these patients should not be dismissed as a mere consequence of anticoagulation treatment,” wrote Peter Vibe Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and his coauthors, adding that “timely examination could potentially provide early detection of malignant colorectal lesions.” The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine whether being treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and subsequently undergoing GI bleeding indicates colorectal cancer, the researchers examined data from 125,418 Danish AF patients gathered from a nationwide registry. Their median age was 73 years old, and 58% (n = 73,271) were males.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 2,576 cases of lower GI bleeding were identified; 140 of those cases led to a diagnosis of colorectal cancer within a year. The absolute 1-year risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.1-10.6%) in patients aged 76-80 and 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2-6.2%) in patients 65 years old or younger.

All age groups had a higher risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding, compared with patients without bleeding. Patients 65 or younger had a risk ratio of 24.2 (95% CI, 14.5-40.4) while patients over 85 had a risk ratio of 12.3 (95% CI, 7.9-19.0).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of information regarding certain risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, dietary habits, and obesity. In addition, they noted that the absolute risk of colorectal cancer in patients without bleeding is likely underdiagnosed, as “patients without GI bleeding are less likely to undergo diagnostic procedures.”

Two of the authors are employees at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, respectively. Six additional authors reported receiving grants, speaker honoraria and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rasmussen PV et al. Eur Heart J. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz964.

A new study has found that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who take oral anticoagulants and then suffer from lower GI bleeding have a much higher risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

“Our data indicate that lower GI bleeding in these patients should not be dismissed as a mere consequence of anticoagulation treatment,” wrote Peter Vibe Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and his coauthors, adding that “timely examination could potentially provide early detection of malignant colorectal lesions.” The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine whether being treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and subsequently undergoing GI bleeding indicates colorectal cancer, the researchers examined data from 125,418 Danish AF patients gathered from a nationwide registry. Their median age was 73 years old, and 58% (n = 73,271) were males.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 2,576 cases of lower GI bleeding were identified; 140 of those cases led to a diagnosis of colorectal cancer within a year. The absolute 1-year risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.1-10.6%) in patients aged 76-80 and 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2-6.2%) in patients 65 years old or younger.

All age groups had a higher risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding, compared with patients without bleeding. Patients 65 or younger had a risk ratio of 24.2 (95% CI, 14.5-40.4) while patients over 85 had a risk ratio of 12.3 (95% CI, 7.9-19.0).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of information regarding certain risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, dietary habits, and obesity. In addition, they noted that the absolute risk of colorectal cancer in patients without bleeding is likely underdiagnosed, as “patients without GI bleeding are less likely to undergo diagnostic procedures.”

Two of the authors are employees at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, respectively. Six additional authors reported receiving grants, speaker honoraria and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rasmussen PV et al. Eur Heart J. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz964.

A new study has found that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who take oral anticoagulants and then suffer from lower GI bleeding have a much higher risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

“Our data indicate that lower GI bleeding in these patients should not be dismissed as a mere consequence of anticoagulation treatment,” wrote Peter Vibe Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and his coauthors, adding that “timely examination could potentially provide early detection of malignant colorectal lesions.” The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine whether being treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and subsequently undergoing GI bleeding indicates colorectal cancer, the researchers examined data from 125,418 Danish AF patients gathered from a nationwide registry. Their median age was 73 years old, and 58% (n = 73,271) were males.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 2,576 cases of lower GI bleeding were identified; 140 of those cases led to a diagnosis of colorectal cancer within a year. The absolute 1-year risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.1-10.6%) in patients aged 76-80 and 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2-6.2%) in patients 65 years old or younger.

All age groups had a higher risk of colorectal cancer after bleeding, compared with patients without bleeding. Patients 65 or younger had a risk ratio of 24.2 (95% CI, 14.5-40.4) while patients over 85 had a risk ratio of 12.3 (95% CI, 7.9-19.0).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of information regarding certain risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, dietary habits, and obesity. In addition, they noted that the absolute risk of colorectal cancer in patients without bleeding is likely underdiagnosed, as “patients without GI bleeding are less likely to undergo diagnostic procedures.”

Two of the authors are employees at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, respectively. Six additional authors reported receiving grants, speaker honoraria and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rasmussen PV et al. Eur Heart J. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz964.

While physicians acknowledge that the social determinants of health can impact outcomes from medical care, some may feel that trying to address factors such as homelessness, food insecurity, or lack of ready access to transportation or pharmacy services is just not part of the doctor’s job. A majority of 621 physicians surveyed in the summer of 2017 by Salt Lake City–based health care intelligence firm Leavitt Partners say they are neither capable of nor responsible for addressing such issues.¹

But that view may become unsustainable as the U.S. health care system continues to advance toward value- and population-based models of health care and as evidence mounts that social factors are important contributors to costly outcomes, such as avoidable hospital readmissions or emergency room visits. A recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that at least 40% of health outcomes are the result of social and economic factors, while only 20% can be attributed to medical care.²

“This is a hot topic – getting a lot of attention these days,” said hospitalist and care transitions expert Ramon Jacobs-Shaw, MD, MPA, regional medical officer for CareMore Health, a California-based physician-led health delivery organization and subsidiary of Anthem. “If you go around the country, some doctors still see social factors as the realm of the social worker. But large health care organizations are coming to recognize that social determinants are huge contributors to the health of their members and to the outcomes of their care.”

Hospitalists could be the natural providers to delve into the specific psychosocial aspects of their patients’ lives, or try to figure out how those factors contribute to health care needs, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. They typically confront such issues while the patient is in the hospital bed, but what are the steps that led to the hospitalization in the first place? What will happen after the patient is discharged?

“For example, if patients lack transportation, how can they get to their follow-up medical appointment in the primary care office in order to manage their diabetes? If you can’t follow up with them, their diabetes could get out of control, with complications as a result, such as an infected wound,” he said. Another big issue is access to affordable medications. “CareMore has pharmacists embedded on our care teams. They try to figure out the best medicine for the patient but at the lowest cost. They meet individually with patients and do medication counseling, particularly for those with polypharmacy issues.”

Making health care more equitable

Dr. Jacobs-Shaw has long held a personal interest in issues of inclusiveness, diversity, and how to make health care more equitable for historically underserved groups. Asking how to have a bigger impact on these issues is what brought him, after 13 years as a hospitalist on the East Coast, to CareMore, a company that has made addressing social needs central to its care model. “In California, where I am based, we are a wrap-around for patients who are covered by Medicare Advantage plans. We are whatever the patient needs us to be.”

He oversees a group of hospitalists, dubbed extensivists, who provide advanced patient care and chronic disease management. In the extensivist model, physicians and advanced practice nurses provide comprehensive and coordinated care to patients with complex medical issues, taking their scope of practice beyond the hospital into homes, post-acute care facilities, and other settings, with a focus on keeping patients healthier and reducing readmission.³

“Our patients get access to extra services and resources, some of which are available at our care centers – which are one-stop outpatient facilities. We also focus on a lot of things physicians didn’t historically think were within their wheelhouse. Hospitalists deal with these kinds of issues every day, but may not label them as social determinants of health,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. He emphasized that hospitalists should realize that they are not powerless to address these issues, working in partnership with other groups in and out of the hospital. They should also know that health care payers increasingly are dedicating resources to these issues.

“We just started trying to address homelessness through a pilot in Orange County, working with nonprofit organizations and philanthropy to offer a transitional site of care for our patients who are being discharged from the hospital and have housing insecurity issues, to get them transitioned into more secure housing,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. CareMore also has a transportation collaborative that offers no-cost, nonemergency transportation to medical appointments. “That’s meeting them where they are at, based on an assessment of their needs and resources.”
 

What are social determinants?

The social determinants of health – social, environmental, and other nonmedical factors that contribute to overall health status and medical need – have been defined by the World Health Organization as: “conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.” That is a broad complex of overlapping social and systems issues, but it provides a context for a broader understanding of the patient’s health and response to medical interventions.

Socioeconomic status is a huge determinant. Level of education may be more important than income if the person lacks the health literacy to navigate the system and access needed care. Housing instability may include poor sanitation, substandard dwellings, or unsafe neighborhoods – all of which can affect a person’s well-being. Environmental health may include compromised air quality – which can impact pulmonary health. Other issues include access to employment and child care, utility needs, and interpersonal violence.

A 2014 paper in Annals of Internal Medicine found that residence within a disadvantaged neighborhood was a factor in hospital readmission rates as often as was chronic pulmonary disease.⁴ A recent report on social determinants of health by the National Institute for Health Care Management notes that patients with food insecurity are 2.4 times more likely to go to the emergency room, while those with transportation needs are 2.6 times more likely.⁵

What can health care leaders do to better equip their clinicians and teams to help patients deal with this array of complex needs? Intermountain Healthcare, based in Salt Lake City, spearheaded in 2018 the development of the Alliance for the Determinants of Health, starting in the communities of Ogden and St. George, Utah. The Alliance seeks to promote health, improve access to care, and decrease health care costs through a charitable contribution of $12 million over 3 years to seed collaborative demonstration projects.

Lisa Nichols, assistant vice president for community health at Intermountain, said that, while hospitalists were not directly involved in planning the Alliance, hospitalists and ED physicians have become essential to the patient-screening process for health and social needs.

“We met with hospitalists, emergency departments, and hospital administrators, because we wanted their feedback on how to raise awareness of the social needs of patients,” she said. “They have good ideas. They see the patients who come in from the homeless shelters.”

Other hospitals are subsidizing apartments for homeless patients being discharged from the hospital. CommonSpirit Health, the new national Catholic health care organization formed by the 2019 merger of Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, has explored how to help create and sustain affordable housing in the communities it serves. Investments like this have inspired others, such as Kaiser Permanente, to get involved in supporting housing initiatives.⁶

Comprehensive community care

David Meltzer, MD, PhD, a hospitalist and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said most hospitalists these days believe social determinants of health are part of their job responsibilities.

“That’s not to say we all do it well. We may fail at addressing some of the barriers our patients face. But I don’t know anyone who still says it’s not their job,” he said.

Since 2012, Dr. Meltzer has led a pilot called Comprehensive Care Physicians (CCP), in which the same physician cares for patients with chronic health problems in the clinic and in the hospital, working with a team of nurse practitioners, social workers, care coordinators, and other specialists. A total of 2,000 patients with chronic health problems were enrolled in the study from 2012 to 2016, half assigned to standard care and half assigned to five CCP doctors. The result: The CCP model has shown large improvements in outcomes – particularly among the more vulnerable, less activated patients, is preferred by patients, and has significantly reduced health care utilization.

The next step for the research team is another randomized controlled trial called Comprehensive Care, Community, and Culture, designed to address unmet social needs. Study group patients will also be screened for unmet social needs and have access to a community health worker and to the initiative’s Artful Living Program, which includes community and cultural activities like yoga and dance classes, cooking classes, art classes, and music concerts. To address the complex dimensions and determinants of health, Dr. Meltzer explained, efforts to improve health must extend to sectors far beyond traditional health care.

“I think trying to understand your patients’ social and nonmedical needs starts with getting to know them, and asking about their needs,” he said. “The better you know them, the better you are able to make medical decisions that will promote positive outcomes.”

Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash., and working in 350 hospitals in 41 states, recently published a blog post on its website about the importance of social determinants of health.⁷ Sound Physicians participates in value-based care through bundled Medicare/Medicaid contracts based on episodes of care for hospitalized patients with certain diagnoses or DRGs, explained John Dickey, MD, the company’s chief medical officer for population health.

“We’ve been heavily involved in trying to improve cost and outcomes of care since 2015. Social determinants absolutely play into trying to lower costs of care and reduce rates of readmissions, which are often multifactorial in cause,” he said. Hospitalists are uniquely equipped to impact post-acute outcomes, Dr. Dickey said, working in partnership with a position Sound Physicians calls the clinical performance nurse.

“We can also partner with primary care providers, provide education for our hospitalist staff, and work with in-home care supports for patients such as these, who otherwise might end up in a skilled nursing facility – even though they’d rather be at home,” he said.

Innovations at Northwell Health

Northwell Health, a multihospital comprehensive health system serving the New York City metro area and Long Island, has shown innovative leadership in addressing social factors. The 23-hospital system initiated in early 2019 a 15-item Self-Reported Social Determinants Screening Tool, which is now used with hospitalized patients to connect them with the support they need to fully recover and avoid readmissions.

Northwell is also providing professional education on social determinants for different constituencies across its system, said Johanna Martinez, MD, MS, a hospitalist and GME Director of Diversity and Health Equity at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. A day-long training retreat was offered to GME faculty, and learning platforms have been developed for physicians, social workers, nurses, and others.

“One of the questions that comes up is that if you find social needs, what do you do about them?” Dr. Martinez explained. That’s more a difficult challenge, she said, so at Northwell, orthopedic surgeons are now asking patients questions like: “What’s going to happen when you go home? What are your social supports? Can you get to the physical therapist’s office?”

Another example of Northwell’s innovations is its Food as Health Program, initially piloted at Long Island Jewish Hospital in Valley Stream, N.Y. Hospitalized patients are asked two questions using a validated screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign to identify their food insecurities.⁸ Those who answer yes are referred to a dietitian, and if they have a nutrition-related diagnosis, they enter the multidisciplinary wraparound program.

A key element is the food and health center, located on the hospital campus, where they can get food to take home and referrals to other services, with culturally tailored, disease-specific food education incorporated into the discharge plan. One of the partnering organizations is Island Harvest Food Bank, which helps about 1 in every 10 residents of Long Island with their food insecurity issues.

“When I talk to clinicians, most of us went into medicine to save lives and cure people. Yet the research shows that no matter who we are, we can’t do the best work that our patients need unless we consider their social determinants,” Dr. Martinez said. Ultimately, she noted, there is a need to change the culture of health care. “We have to create system change, reimbursement change, policy change.”

Omolara Uwemedimo, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and occupational medicine at Northwell and a former nocturnist, said the treatment of illness and health improvement don’t begin in the hospital, they begin in the community. Identifying where people are struggling and what communities they come from requires a broader view of the provider’s role. “Are patients who are readmitted to the hospital generally coming from certain demographics or from certain zip codes?” she asked. “Start there. How can we better connect with those communities?”

Education is key

In 2020 and beyond, hospitalists will hear more about the social determinants of health, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw concluded. “Without addressing those social determinants, we aren’t going to be able to meaningfully impact outcomes or be effective stewards of health care costs – addressing the psychosocial factors and root causes of patients coming in and out of the hospital.”

He added that self-education is key for hospitalists and the teams they work with – to be more aware of the link between health outcomes and social determinants. Guidelines and other resources on social determinants of health are available from the American College of Physicians and the American Association of Family Physicians. ACP issued a position paper on addressing social determinants of health to improve patient care,while AAFP has a research page on its website dedicated to social determinants of health, highlighting a number of initiatives and resources for physicians and others.⁹

The American Hospital Association has produced fact sheets on ICD-10CM code categories for social determinants of health, including 11 ICD-10 “Z” codes, numbered Z55-Z65, which can be used for coding interventions to address social determinants of health. Other experts are looking at how to adapt the electronic health record to capture sociodemographic and behavioral factors, and then trigger referrals to resources in the hospital and the broader community, and how to mobilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to better identify social needs.

“Our doctors really want to be able to take care of the whole patient, while being stewards of health care resources. But sometimes we feel powerless and wonder how we can have a bigger impact on people, on populations” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. “Remember it only takes one voice within an organization to start to elevate this topic.”
 

References

1. Rappleye E. Physicians say social determinants of health are not their responsibility. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2018 May 15.

2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings, 2014.

3. Freeman, GA. The extensivist model. Health Leaders Magazine, 2016 Sep 15.

4. Kind AJ et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Dec 2;161(11):765-74.

5. National Institute for Health Care Management. Addressing social determinants of health can improve community health & reduce costs.

6. Vial PB. Boundless collaboration: A philosophy for sustainable and stabilizing housing investment strategies. Health Progress: Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States. September-October 2019.

7. Social determinants of health: New solutions for growing complexities. Op-Med, a blog by Sound Physicians. 2019 Aug 1.

8. The hunger vital sign: A new standard of care for preventive health.

9. Daniel H et al. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: An American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:557-578.

While physicians acknowledge that the social determinants of health can impact outcomes from medical care, some may feel that trying to address factors such as homelessness, food insecurity, or lack of ready access to transportation or pharmacy services is just not part of the doctor’s job. A majority of 621 physicians surveyed in the summer of 2017 by Salt Lake City–based health care intelligence firm Leavitt Partners say they are neither capable of nor responsible for addressing such issues.¹

But that view may become unsustainable as the U.S. health care system continues to advance toward value- and population-based models of health care and as evidence mounts that social factors are important contributors to costly outcomes, such as avoidable hospital readmissions or emergency room visits. A recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that at least 40% of health outcomes are the result of social and economic factors, while only 20% can be attributed to medical care.²

“This is a hot topic – getting a lot of attention these days,” said hospitalist and care transitions expert Ramon Jacobs-Shaw, MD, MPA, regional medical officer for CareMore Health, a California-based physician-led health delivery organization and subsidiary of Anthem. “If you go around the country, some doctors still see social factors as the realm of the social worker. But large health care organizations are coming to recognize that social determinants are huge contributors to the health of their members and to the outcomes of their care.”

Hospitalists could be the natural providers to delve into the specific psychosocial aspects of their patients’ lives, or try to figure out how those factors contribute to health care needs, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. They typically confront such issues while the patient is in the hospital bed, but what are the steps that led to the hospitalization in the first place? What will happen after the patient is discharged?

“For example, if patients lack transportation, how can they get to their follow-up medical appointment in the primary care office in order to manage their diabetes? If you can’t follow up with them, their diabetes could get out of control, with complications as a result, such as an infected wound,” he said. Another big issue is access to affordable medications. “CareMore has pharmacists embedded on our care teams. They try to figure out the best medicine for the patient but at the lowest cost. They meet individually with patients and do medication counseling, particularly for those with polypharmacy issues.”

Making health care more equitable

Dr. Jacobs-Shaw has long held a personal interest in issues of inclusiveness, diversity, and how to make health care more equitable for historically underserved groups. Asking how to have a bigger impact on these issues is what brought him, after 13 years as a hospitalist on the East Coast, to CareMore, a company that has made addressing social needs central to its care model. “In California, where I am based, we are a wrap-around for patients who are covered by Medicare Advantage plans. We are whatever the patient needs us to be.”

He oversees a group of hospitalists, dubbed extensivists, who provide advanced patient care and chronic disease management. In the extensivist model, physicians and advanced practice nurses provide comprehensive and coordinated care to patients with complex medical issues, taking their scope of practice beyond the hospital into homes, post-acute care facilities, and other settings, with a focus on keeping patients healthier and reducing readmission.³

“Our patients get access to extra services and resources, some of which are available at our care centers – which are one-stop outpatient facilities. We also focus on a lot of things physicians didn’t historically think were within their wheelhouse. Hospitalists deal with these kinds of issues every day, but may not label them as social determinants of health,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. He emphasized that hospitalists should realize that they are not powerless to address these issues, working in partnership with other groups in and out of the hospital. They should also know that health care payers increasingly are dedicating resources to these issues.

“We just started trying to address homelessness through a pilot in Orange County, working with nonprofit organizations and philanthropy to offer a transitional site of care for our patients who are being discharged from the hospital and have housing insecurity issues, to get them transitioned into more secure housing,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. CareMore also has a transportation collaborative that offers no-cost, nonemergency transportation to medical appointments. “That’s meeting them where they are at, based on an assessment of their needs and resources.”
 

What are social determinants?

The social determinants of health – social, environmental, and other nonmedical factors that contribute to overall health status and medical need – have been defined by the World Health Organization as: “conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.” That is a broad complex of overlapping social and systems issues, but it provides a context for a broader understanding of the patient’s health and response to medical interventions.

Socioeconomic status is a huge determinant. Level of education may be more important than income if the person lacks the health literacy to navigate the system and access needed care. Housing instability may include poor sanitation, substandard dwellings, or unsafe neighborhoods – all of which can affect a person’s well-being. Environmental health may include compromised air quality – which can impact pulmonary health. Other issues include access to employment and child care, utility needs, and interpersonal violence.

A 2014 paper in Annals of Internal Medicine found that residence within a disadvantaged neighborhood was a factor in hospital readmission rates as often as was chronic pulmonary disease.⁴ A recent report on social determinants of health by the National Institute for Health Care Management notes that patients with food insecurity are 2.4 times more likely to go to the emergency room, while those with transportation needs are 2.6 times more likely.⁵

What can health care leaders do to better equip their clinicians and teams to help patients deal with this array of complex needs? Intermountain Healthcare, based in Salt Lake City, spearheaded in 2018 the development of the Alliance for the Determinants of Health, starting in the communities of Ogden and St. George, Utah. The Alliance seeks to promote health, improve access to care, and decrease health care costs through a charitable contribution of $12 million over 3 years to seed collaborative demonstration projects.

Lisa Nichols, assistant vice president for community health at Intermountain, said that, while hospitalists were not directly involved in planning the Alliance, hospitalists and ED physicians have become essential to the patient-screening process for health and social needs.

“We met with hospitalists, emergency departments, and hospital administrators, because we wanted their feedback on how to raise awareness of the social needs of patients,” she said. “They have good ideas. They see the patients who come in from the homeless shelters.”

Other hospitals are subsidizing apartments for homeless patients being discharged from the hospital. CommonSpirit Health, the new national Catholic health care organization formed by the 2019 merger of Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, has explored how to help create and sustain affordable housing in the communities it serves. Investments like this have inspired others, such as Kaiser Permanente, to get involved in supporting housing initiatives.⁶

Comprehensive community care

David Meltzer, MD, PhD, a hospitalist and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said most hospitalists these days believe social determinants of health are part of their job responsibilities.

“That’s not to say we all do it well. We may fail at addressing some of the barriers our patients face. But I don’t know anyone who still says it’s not their job,” he said.

Since 2012, Dr. Meltzer has led a pilot called Comprehensive Care Physicians (CCP), in which the same physician cares for patients with chronic health problems in the clinic and in the hospital, working with a team of nurse practitioners, social workers, care coordinators, and other specialists. A total of 2,000 patients with chronic health problems were enrolled in the study from 2012 to 2016, half assigned to standard care and half assigned to five CCP doctors. The result: The CCP model has shown large improvements in outcomes – particularly among the more vulnerable, less activated patients, is preferred by patients, and has significantly reduced health care utilization.

The next step for the research team is another randomized controlled trial called Comprehensive Care, Community, and Culture, designed to address unmet social needs. Study group patients will also be screened for unmet social needs and have access to a community health worker and to the initiative’s Artful Living Program, which includes community and cultural activities like yoga and dance classes, cooking classes, art classes, and music concerts. To address the complex dimensions and determinants of health, Dr. Meltzer explained, efforts to improve health must extend to sectors far beyond traditional health care.

“I think trying to understand your patients’ social and nonmedical needs starts with getting to know them, and asking about their needs,” he said. “The better you know them, the better you are able to make medical decisions that will promote positive outcomes.”

Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash., and working in 350 hospitals in 41 states, recently published a blog post on its website about the importance of social determinants of health.⁷ Sound Physicians participates in value-based care through bundled Medicare/Medicaid contracts based on episodes of care for hospitalized patients with certain diagnoses or DRGs, explained John Dickey, MD, the company’s chief medical officer for population health.

“We’ve been heavily involved in trying to improve cost and outcomes of care since 2015. Social determinants absolutely play into trying to lower costs of care and reduce rates of readmissions, which are often multifactorial in cause,” he said. Hospitalists are uniquely equipped to impact post-acute outcomes, Dr. Dickey said, working in partnership with a position Sound Physicians calls the clinical performance nurse.

“We can also partner with primary care providers, provide education for our hospitalist staff, and work with in-home care supports for patients such as these, who otherwise might end up in a skilled nursing facility – even though they’d rather be at home,” he said.

Innovations at Northwell Health

Northwell Health, a multihospital comprehensive health system serving the New York City metro area and Long Island, has shown innovative leadership in addressing social factors. The 23-hospital system initiated in early 2019 a 15-item Self-Reported Social Determinants Screening Tool, which is now used with hospitalized patients to connect them with the support they need to fully recover and avoid readmissions.

Northwell is also providing professional education on social determinants for different constituencies across its system, said Johanna Martinez, MD, MS, a hospitalist and GME Director of Diversity and Health Equity at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. A day-long training retreat was offered to GME faculty, and learning platforms have been developed for physicians, social workers, nurses, and others.

“One of the questions that comes up is that if you find social needs, what do you do about them?” Dr. Martinez explained. That’s more a difficult challenge, she said, so at Northwell, orthopedic surgeons are now asking patients questions like: “What’s going to happen when you go home? What are your social supports? Can you get to the physical therapist’s office?”

Another example of Northwell’s innovations is its Food as Health Program, initially piloted at Long Island Jewish Hospital in Valley Stream, N.Y. Hospitalized patients are asked two questions using a validated screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign to identify their food insecurities.⁸ Those who answer yes are referred to a dietitian, and if they have a nutrition-related diagnosis, they enter the multidisciplinary wraparound program.

A key element is the food and health center, located on the hospital campus, where they can get food to take home and referrals to other services, with culturally tailored, disease-specific food education incorporated into the discharge plan. One of the partnering organizations is Island Harvest Food Bank, which helps about 1 in every 10 residents of Long Island with their food insecurity issues.

“When I talk to clinicians, most of us went into medicine to save lives and cure people. Yet the research shows that no matter who we are, we can’t do the best work that our patients need unless we consider their social determinants,” Dr. Martinez said. Ultimately, she noted, there is a need to change the culture of health care. “We have to create system change, reimbursement change, policy change.”

Omolara Uwemedimo, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and occupational medicine at Northwell and a former nocturnist, said the treatment of illness and health improvement don’t begin in the hospital, they begin in the community. Identifying where people are struggling and what communities they come from requires a broader view of the provider’s role. “Are patients who are readmitted to the hospital generally coming from certain demographics or from certain zip codes?” she asked. “Start there. How can we better connect with those communities?”

Education is key

In 2020 and beyond, hospitalists will hear more about the social determinants of health, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw concluded. “Without addressing those social determinants, we aren’t going to be able to meaningfully impact outcomes or be effective stewards of health care costs – addressing the psychosocial factors and root causes of patients coming in and out of the hospital.”

He added that self-education is key for hospitalists and the teams they work with – to be more aware of the link between health outcomes and social determinants. Guidelines and other resources on social determinants of health are available from the American College of Physicians and the American Association of Family Physicians. ACP issued a position paper on addressing social determinants of health to improve patient care,while AAFP has a research page on its website dedicated to social determinants of health, highlighting a number of initiatives and resources for physicians and others.⁹

The American Hospital Association has produced fact sheets on ICD-10CM code categories for social determinants of health, including 11 ICD-10 “Z” codes, numbered Z55-Z65, which can be used for coding interventions to address social determinants of health. Other experts are looking at how to adapt the electronic health record to capture sociodemographic and behavioral factors, and then trigger referrals to resources in the hospital and the broader community, and how to mobilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to better identify social needs.

“Our doctors really want to be able to take care of the whole patient, while being stewards of health care resources. But sometimes we feel powerless and wonder how we can have a bigger impact on people, on populations” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. “Remember it only takes one voice within an organization to start to elevate this topic.”
 

References

1. Rappleye E. Physicians say social determinants of health are not their responsibility. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2018 May 15.

2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings, 2014.

3. Freeman, GA. The extensivist model. Health Leaders Magazine, 2016 Sep 15.

4. Kind AJ et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Dec 2;161(11):765-74.

5. National Institute for Health Care Management. Addressing social determinants of health can improve community health & reduce costs.

6. Vial PB. Boundless collaboration: A philosophy for sustainable and stabilizing housing investment strategies. Health Progress: Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States. September-October 2019.

7. Social determinants of health: New solutions for growing complexities. Op-Med, a blog by Sound Physicians. 2019 Aug 1.

8. The hunger vital sign: A new standard of care for preventive health.

9. Daniel H et al. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: An American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:557-578.

While physicians acknowledge that the social determinants of health can impact outcomes from medical care, some may feel that trying to address factors such as homelessness, food insecurity, or lack of ready access to transportation or pharmacy services is just not part of the doctor’s job. A majority of 621 physicians surveyed in the summer of 2017 by Salt Lake City–based health care intelligence firm Leavitt Partners say they are neither capable of nor responsible for addressing such issues.¹

But that view may become unsustainable as the U.S. health care system continues to advance toward value- and population-based models of health care and as evidence mounts that social factors are important contributors to costly outcomes, such as avoidable hospital readmissions or emergency room visits. A recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that at least 40% of health outcomes are the result of social and economic factors, while only 20% can be attributed to medical care.²

“This is a hot topic – getting a lot of attention these days,” said hospitalist and care transitions expert Ramon Jacobs-Shaw, MD, MPA, regional medical officer for CareMore Health, a California-based physician-led health delivery organization and subsidiary of Anthem. “If you go around the country, some doctors still see social factors as the realm of the social worker. But large health care organizations are coming to recognize that social determinants are huge contributors to the health of their members and to the outcomes of their care.”

Hospitalists could be the natural providers to delve into the specific psychosocial aspects of their patients’ lives, or try to figure out how those factors contribute to health care needs, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. They typically confront such issues while the patient is in the hospital bed, but what are the steps that led to the hospitalization in the first place? What will happen after the patient is discharged?

“For example, if patients lack transportation, how can they get to their follow-up medical appointment in the primary care office in order to manage their diabetes? If you can’t follow up with them, their diabetes could get out of control, with complications as a result, such as an infected wound,” he said. Another big issue is access to affordable medications. “CareMore has pharmacists embedded on our care teams. They try to figure out the best medicine for the patient but at the lowest cost. They meet individually with patients and do medication counseling, particularly for those with polypharmacy issues.”

Making health care more equitable

Dr. Jacobs-Shaw has long held a personal interest in issues of inclusiveness, diversity, and how to make health care more equitable for historically underserved groups. Asking how to have a bigger impact on these issues is what brought him, after 13 years as a hospitalist on the East Coast, to CareMore, a company that has made addressing social needs central to its care model. “In California, where I am based, we are a wrap-around for patients who are covered by Medicare Advantage plans. We are whatever the patient needs us to be.”

He oversees a group of hospitalists, dubbed extensivists, who provide advanced patient care and chronic disease management. In the extensivist model, physicians and advanced practice nurses provide comprehensive and coordinated care to patients with complex medical issues, taking their scope of practice beyond the hospital into homes, post-acute care facilities, and other settings, with a focus on keeping patients healthier and reducing readmission.³

“Our patients get access to extra services and resources, some of which are available at our care centers – which are one-stop outpatient facilities. We also focus on a lot of things physicians didn’t historically think were within their wheelhouse. Hospitalists deal with these kinds of issues every day, but may not label them as social determinants of health,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. He emphasized that hospitalists should realize that they are not powerless to address these issues, working in partnership with other groups in and out of the hospital. They should also know that health care payers increasingly are dedicating resources to these issues.

“We just started trying to address homelessness through a pilot in Orange County, working with nonprofit organizations and philanthropy to offer a transitional site of care for our patients who are being discharged from the hospital and have housing insecurity issues, to get them transitioned into more secure housing,” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. CareMore also has a transportation collaborative that offers no-cost, nonemergency transportation to medical appointments. “That’s meeting them where they are at, based on an assessment of their needs and resources.”
 

What are social determinants?

The social determinants of health – social, environmental, and other nonmedical factors that contribute to overall health status and medical need – have been defined by the World Health Organization as: “conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.” That is a broad complex of overlapping social and systems issues, but it provides a context for a broader understanding of the patient’s health and response to medical interventions.

Socioeconomic status is a huge determinant. Level of education may be more important than income if the person lacks the health literacy to navigate the system and access needed care. Housing instability may include poor sanitation, substandard dwellings, or unsafe neighborhoods – all of which can affect a person’s well-being. Environmental health may include compromised air quality – which can impact pulmonary health. Other issues include access to employment and child care, utility needs, and interpersonal violence.

A 2014 paper in Annals of Internal Medicine found that residence within a disadvantaged neighborhood was a factor in hospital readmission rates as often as was chronic pulmonary disease.⁴ A recent report on social determinants of health by the National Institute for Health Care Management notes that patients with food insecurity are 2.4 times more likely to go to the emergency room, while those with transportation needs are 2.6 times more likely.⁵

What can health care leaders do to better equip their clinicians and teams to help patients deal with this array of complex needs? Intermountain Healthcare, based in Salt Lake City, spearheaded in 2018 the development of the Alliance for the Determinants of Health, starting in the communities of Ogden and St. George, Utah. The Alliance seeks to promote health, improve access to care, and decrease health care costs through a charitable contribution of $12 million over 3 years to seed collaborative demonstration projects.

Lisa Nichols, assistant vice president for community health at Intermountain, said that, while hospitalists were not directly involved in planning the Alliance, hospitalists and ED physicians have become essential to the patient-screening process for health and social needs.

“We met with hospitalists, emergency departments, and hospital administrators, because we wanted their feedback on how to raise awareness of the social needs of patients,” she said. “They have good ideas. They see the patients who come in from the homeless shelters.”

Other hospitals are subsidizing apartments for homeless patients being discharged from the hospital. CommonSpirit Health, the new national Catholic health care organization formed by the 2019 merger of Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, has explored how to help create and sustain affordable housing in the communities it serves. Investments like this have inspired others, such as Kaiser Permanente, to get involved in supporting housing initiatives.⁶

Comprehensive community care

David Meltzer, MD, PhD, a hospitalist and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said most hospitalists these days believe social determinants of health are part of their job responsibilities.

“That’s not to say we all do it well. We may fail at addressing some of the barriers our patients face. But I don’t know anyone who still says it’s not their job,” he said.

Since 2012, Dr. Meltzer has led a pilot called Comprehensive Care Physicians (CCP), in which the same physician cares for patients with chronic health problems in the clinic and in the hospital, working with a team of nurse practitioners, social workers, care coordinators, and other specialists. A total of 2,000 patients with chronic health problems were enrolled in the study from 2012 to 2016, half assigned to standard care and half assigned to five CCP doctors. The result: The CCP model has shown large improvements in outcomes – particularly among the more vulnerable, less activated patients, is preferred by patients, and has significantly reduced health care utilization.

The next step for the research team is another randomized controlled trial called Comprehensive Care, Community, and Culture, designed to address unmet social needs. Study group patients will also be screened for unmet social needs and have access to a community health worker and to the initiative’s Artful Living Program, which includes community and cultural activities like yoga and dance classes, cooking classes, art classes, and music concerts. To address the complex dimensions and determinants of health, Dr. Meltzer explained, efforts to improve health must extend to sectors far beyond traditional health care.

“I think trying to understand your patients’ social and nonmedical needs starts with getting to know them, and asking about their needs,” he said. “The better you know them, the better you are able to make medical decisions that will promote positive outcomes.”

Sound Physicians, a national hospitalist company based in Tacoma, Wash., and working in 350 hospitals in 41 states, recently published a blog post on its website about the importance of social determinants of health.⁷ Sound Physicians participates in value-based care through bundled Medicare/Medicaid contracts based on episodes of care for hospitalized patients with certain diagnoses or DRGs, explained John Dickey, MD, the company’s chief medical officer for population health.

“We’ve been heavily involved in trying to improve cost and outcomes of care since 2015. Social determinants absolutely play into trying to lower costs of care and reduce rates of readmissions, which are often multifactorial in cause,” he said. Hospitalists are uniquely equipped to impact post-acute outcomes, Dr. Dickey said, working in partnership with a position Sound Physicians calls the clinical performance nurse.

“We can also partner with primary care providers, provide education for our hospitalist staff, and work with in-home care supports for patients such as these, who otherwise might end up in a skilled nursing facility – even though they’d rather be at home,” he said.

Innovations at Northwell Health

Northwell Health, a multihospital comprehensive health system serving the New York City metro area and Long Island, has shown innovative leadership in addressing social factors. The 23-hospital system initiated in early 2019 a 15-item Self-Reported Social Determinants Screening Tool, which is now used with hospitalized patients to connect them with the support they need to fully recover and avoid readmissions.

Northwell is also providing professional education on social determinants for different constituencies across its system, said Johanna Martinez, MD, MS, a hospitalist and GME Director of Diversity and Health Equity at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. A day-long training retreat was offered to GME faculty, and learning platforms have been developed for physicians, social workers, nurses, and others.

“One of the questions that comes up is that if you find social needs, what do you do about them?” Dr. Martinez explained. That’s more a difficult challenge, she said, so at Northwell, orthopedic surgeons are now asking patients questions like: “What’s going to happen when you go home? What are your social supports? Can you get to the physical therapist’s office?”

Another example of Northwell’s innovations is its Food as Health Program, initially piloted at Long Island Jewish Hospital in Valley Stream, N.Y. Hospitalized patients are asked two questions using a validated screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign to identify their food insecurities.⁸ Those who answer yes are referred to a dietitian, and if they have a nutrition-related diagnosis, they enter the multidisciplinary wraparound program.

A key element is the food and health center, located on the hospital campus, where they can get food to take home and referrals to other services, with culturally tailored, disease-specific food education incorporated into the discharge plan. One of the partnering organizations is Island Harvest Food Bank, which helps about 1 in every 10 residents of Long Island with their food insecurity issues.

“When I talk to clinicians, most of us went into medicine to save lives and cure people. Yet the research shows that no matter who we are, we can’t do the best work that our patients need unless we consider their social determinants,” Dr. Martinez said. Ultimately, she noted, there is a need to change the culture of health care. “We have to create system change, reimbursement change, policy change.”

Omolara Uwemedimo, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and occupational medicine at Northwell and a former nocturnist, said the treatment of illness and health improvement don’t begin in the hospital, they begin in the community. Identifying where people are struggling and what communities they come from requires a broader view of the provider’s role. “Are patients who are readmitted to the hospital generally coming from certain demographics or from certain zip codes?” she asked. “Start there. How can we better connect with those communities?”

Education is key

In 2020 and beyond, hospitalists will hear more about the social determinants of health, Dr. Jacobs-Shaw concluded. “Without addressing those social determinants, we aren’t going to be able to meaningfully impact outcomes or be effective stewards of health care costs – addressing the psychosocial factors and root causes of patients coming in and out of the hospital.”

He added that self-education is key for hospitalists and the teams they work with – to be more aware of the link between health outcomes and social determinants. Guidelines and other resources on social determinants of health are available from the American College of Physicians and the American Association of Family Physicians. ACP issued a position paper on addressing social determinants of health to improve patient care,while AAFP has a research page on its website dedicated to social determinants of health, highlighting a number of initiatives and resources for physicians and others.⁹

The American Hospital Association has produced fact sheets on ICD-10CM code categories for social determinants of health, including 11 ICD-10 “Z” codes, numbered Z55-Z65, which can be used for coding interventions to address social determinants of health. Other experts are looking at how to adapt the electronic health record to capture sociodemographic and behavioral factors, and then trigger referrals to resources in the hospital and the broader community, and how to mobilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to better identify social needs.

“Our doctors really want to be able to take care of the whole patient, while being stewards of health care resources. But sometimes we feel powerless and wonder how we can have a bigger impact on people, on populations” Dr. Jacobs-Shaw said. “Remember it only takes one voice within an organization to start to elevate this topic.”
 

References

1. Rappleye E. Physicians say social determinants of health are not their responsibility. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2018 May 15.

2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings, 2014.

3. Freeman, GA. The extensivist model. Health Leaders Magazine, 2016 Sep 15.

4. Kind AJ et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Dec 2;161(11):765-74.

5. National Institute for Health Care Management. Addressing social determinants of health can improve community health & reduce costs.

6. Vial PB. Boundless collaboration: A philosophy for sustainable and stabilizing housing investment strategies. Health Progress: Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States. September-October 2019.

7. Social determinants of health: New solutions for growing complexities. Op-Med, a blog by Sound Physicians. 2019 Aug 1.

8. The hunger vital sign: A new standard of care for preventive health.

9. Daniel H et al. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: An American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:557-578.

Despite expert recommendations promoting room-sharing but not bed-sharing for the first 6 months of life, most mothers don’t follow this advice, according to a recent nationally representative study.

Stanislav Fridkin/iStockphoto.com

Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.

Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.

How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.

Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).

The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”

The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.

The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.

Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.

“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.

Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.

Despite expert recommendations promoting room-sharing but not bed-sharing for the first 6 months of life, most mothers don’t follow this advice, according to a recent nationally representative study.

Stanislav Fridkin/iStockphoto.com

Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.

Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.

How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.

Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).

The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”

The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.

The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.

Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.

“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.

Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.

Despite expert recommendations promoting room-sharing but not bed-sharing for the first 6 months of life, most mothers don’t follow this advice, according to a recent nationally representative study.

Stanislav Fridkin/iStockphoto.com

Of 3,260 mothers surveyed, 59% of mothers said that they intended to room-share without bed-sharing, but only 45% practiced – and also had the intent to practice – room-sharing without bed-sharing. Of the 41% who said that they did not intend to bed-share, 24% actually did intend to practice at least some bed-sharing with their infants, who were all aged 2-6 months at the time of survey administration.

Mothers who were African American and those who were breastfeeding exclusively were most likely to report that they intended to bed-share, reported Ann Kellams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, and coauthors. Mothers who were exclusively breastfeeding had a nearly threefold higher rate of intending to bed-share than mothers whose infants were fed formula.

How mothers perceived social norms about bed- and room-sharing practices also plays a role. Women who considered that social norms supported bed-sharing and discouraged room-sharing had almost 200 times the odds of intending to bed-share, compared with those who perceived that social norms supported room-sharing without bed-sharing.

Conversely, being advised by a doctor to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended practice of room-sharing without bed-sharing made it less likely that mothers would plan to share a bed with their infant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56). Yet women who intended to room-share without bed-sharing but who actually did bed-share some of the time, their doctor’s advice to room-share only had no impact (aOR, 1.01).

The investigators noted that, “although other studies have investigated factors influencing maternal decisions, no studies to date have examined maternal intention regarding sleep location and what factors influence intention.”

The Study of Attitudes and Factors Effecting Infant Care drew from 32 U.S. hospitals, and asked mothers about feeding and care practices, including the infant’s usual sleep locations and all sleep locations over the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Additionally, the survey asked about future intent for sleeping practices, looking ahead to the next 2 weeks.

The survey design and the analysis performed in the study were based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), “which hypothesizes that attitudes, subjective social norms, and perceptions about control over behavior impact one’s intention, which leads to actual behavior,” explained Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators. They reported that they had previously used TPB to analyze mothers’ intentions and actions regarding supine sleep position for infants, finding that a variety of behavioral and social facets accounted for by TPB affected maternal intention and decision making.

Additionally, the study’s design captured partial-night bed-sharing, where an infant may start the night in a separate bed but be brought to bed for feeding or comforting, then share a bed with the mother for the remainder of the night. “Unintended bed-sharing may explain our finding that there is frequent inconsistency between those whose near-future intention is to room-share without bed-sharing but whose actual practice includes bed-sharing,” the authors wrote.

“Attitudes, social norms, and doctor advice are associated with infant sleep location and may be potential targets for educational interventions,” concluded Dr. Kellams and coinvestigators.

Dr. Kellams and associates reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kellams A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 7;145(3):e20191523.

A quick search for “antibacterial soap” on many online retailers’ websites will bring up dozens of products, some of which appear to contain an active ingredient that has been banned from the market.

copyright/kosziv/Thinkstock

The website of retail pharmacy giant Walgreens, for example, lists Dial Complete antibacterial soap with the active ingredient triclosan, a chemical the Food and Drug Administration banned along with others in 2017. The agency cited a lack of evidence that the ingredients were more effective than plain soap and water and that they were safe for long-term daily use.

A Dial Complete soap product page on Walgreens’ website lists, as of Feb. 4, 2020, an ingredient that was banned by the FDA.

Yet banned substances such as the triclosan in this Dial soap still commonly appear on online product descriptions, researchers found after searching the National Drug Code Directory and the websites of major online retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, and Target. The health effects of antibacterial ingredients “are very poorly defined,” said Chandler Rundle, MD, first author of the study, which was published in Dermatitis. Dr. Rundle is with the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The label on the back of the Dial soap bottle sold on Walgreens.com states that it “[k]ills more bacteria than ordinary liquid hand soap.” The website displays a close-up graphic of a hand that has been washed with Dial soap and that has fewer bacteria than a hand washed with “Others.” The graphic includes a dramatization disclaimer.

When asked about the product, a Walgreens corporate relations spokesperson checked the soap’s ingredients list they had on file from Dial’s parent company, Henkel North American Consumer Goods.

“I did not see that particular ingredient,” the representative said. Their ingredients list reflected a version of the soap that was updated after the ban. That label differs from Walgreens.com’s product information. The updated, ban-compliant version of the soap contains an alternative antibacterial compound, benzalkonium chloride. The spokesperson wasn’t sure of the source of the incorrect information on the website. Dial did not respond to a request for comment.

The ingredients list for Dial Complete soap on Walgreens.com shows FDA-banned triclosan as the active ingredient.

The 2017 FDA ban restricted the marketing of triclosan and triclocarban along with 17 other ingredients in consumer antibacterial soaps because manufacturers did not provide sufficient data to demonstrate that the ingredients were safe and effective, according to the FDA’s announcement. Independent research also showed that some ingredients worked no better than traditional soap and could create antibacterial-resistant microbes. Regular hand soap “still kills bacteria,” Dr. Rundle said. “The inclusion of an antibacterial substance does not make it better.”

Retailers (such as Walgreens) aren’t required to update their products’ online ingredient lists, which can pose a challenge for people who suffer from skin allergies, said Dr. Rundle. People at risk of having a reaction must read labels to verify the ingredients that are included.

Consumer antibacterial soap products that contain the banned compounds have largely been replaced with stand-ins, such as benzalkonium chloride and chloroxylenol, according to Dr. Rundle’s study. He and other researchers are trying to determine whether those compounds have the same shortcomings. “We’re talking 10-20 years down the line, and we’re worried about things like antibacterial resistance and systemic effects,” Dr. Rundle said.

The FDA has considered a ban on benzalkonium chloride and additional antibacterial ingredients, but in 2016, it granted ban deferrals, pending more research. The agency exchanged letters with the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), a trade association that represents companies, including Henkel. The FDA required that its companies fund research to show that the new antibacterial ingredients are safe and effective. The FDA granted subsequent annual extensions in 2017, 2018, and, most recently, in August 2019 to allow continued research into whether several ingredients are effective in soaps. In its most recent letter to the ACI, the FDA gave a checklist of research tasks to be submitted by July 2020.

The letter from August 2019 stated that the ACI, in its March 2019 progress report, failed to address milestones in studies of health care personnel handwashing for two of the substances. It also referenced the ACI’s lack of funding for the studies and reminded the organization that further deferrals would not be granted unless the ACI can show ongoing progress.

The ACI plans to meet with the FDA to have an in-depth discussion, Brian Sansoni, a spokesperson for the ACI, told Medscape Medical News. The ACI plans to give the FDA data that show the effectiveness of these ingredients over the course of several years, “due to the complexity of what FDA is asking for,” Mr. Sansoni said. “We’re working as diligently as possible to meet FDA requests.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A quick search for “antibacterial soap” on many online retailers’ websites will bring up dozens of products, some of which appear to contain an active ingredient that has been banned from the market.

copyright/kosziv/Thinkstock

The website of retail pharmacy giant Walgreens, for example, lists Dial Complete antibacterial soap with the active ingredient triclosan, a chemical the Food and Drug Administration banned along with others in 2017. The agency cited a lack of evidence that the ingredients were more effective than plain soap and water and that they were safe for long-term daily use.

A Dial Complete soap product page on Walgreens’ website lists, as of Feb. 4, 2020, an ingredient that was banned by the FDA.

Yet banned substances such as the triclosan in this Dial soap still commonly appear on online product descriptions, researchers found after searching the National Drug Code Directory and the websites of major online retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, and Target. The health effects of antibacterial ingredients “are very poorly defined,” said Chandler Rundle, MD, first author of the study, which was published in Dermatitis. Dr. Rundle is with the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The label on the back of the Dial soap bottle sold on Walgreens.com states that it “[k]ills more bacteria than ordinary liquid hand soap.” The website displays a close-up graphic of a hand that has been washed with Dial soap and that has fewer bacteria than a hand washed with “Others.” The graphic includes a dramatization disclaimer.

When asked about the product, a Walgreens corporate relations spokesperson checked the soap’s ingredients list they had on file from Dial’s parent company, Henkel North American Consumer Goods.

“I did not see that particular ingredient,” the representative said. Their ingredients list reflected a version of the soap that was updated after the ban. That label differs from Walgreens.com’s product information. The updated, ban-compliant version of the soap contains an alternative antibacterial compound, benzalkonium chloride. The spokesperson wasn’t sure of the source of the incorrect information on the website. Dial did not respond to a request for comment.

The ingredients list for Dial Complete soap on Walgreens.com shows FDA-banned triclosan as the active ingredient.

The 2017 FDA ban restricted the marketing of triclosan and triclocarban along with 17 other ingredients in consumer antibacterial soaps because manufacturers did not provide sufficient data to demonstrate that the ingredients were safe and effective, according to the FDA’s announcement. Independent research also showed that some ingredients worked no better than traditional soap and could create antibacterial-resistant microbes. Regular hand soap “still kills bacteria,” Dr. Rundle said. “The inclusion of an antibacterial substance does not make it better.”

Retailers (such as Walgreens) aren’t required to update their products’ online ingredient lists, which can pose a challenge for people who suffer from skin allergies, said Dr. Rundle. People at risk of having a reaction must read labels to verify the ingredients that are included.

Consumer antibacterial soap products that contain the banned compounds have largely been replaced with stand-ins, such as benzalkonium chloride and chloroxylenol, according to Dr. Rundle’s study. He and other researchers are trying to determine whether those compounds have the same shortcomings. “We’re talking 10-20 years down the line, and we’re worried about things like antibacterial resistance and systemic effects,” Dr. Rundle said.

The FDA has considered a ban on benzalkonium chloride and additional antibacterial ingredients, but in 2016, it granted ban deferrals, pending more research. The agency exchanged letters with the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), a trade association that represents companies, including Henkel. The FDA required that its companies fund research to show that the new antibacterial ingredients are safe and effective. The FDA granted subsequent annual extensions in 2017, 2018, and, most recently, in August 2019 to allow continued research into whether several ingredients are effective in soaps. In its most recent letter to the ACI, the FDA gave a checklist of research tasks to be submitted by July 2020.

The letter from August 2019 stated that the ACI, in its March 2019 progress report, failed to address milestones in studies of health care personnel handwashing for two of the substances. It also referenced the ACI’s lack of funding for the studies and reminded the organization that further deferrals would not be granted unless the ACI can show ongoing progress.

The ACI plans to meet with the FDA to have an in-depth discussion, Brian Sansoni, a spokesperson for the ACI, told Medscape Medical News. The ACI plans to give the FDA data that show the effectiveness of these ingredients over the course of several years, “due to the complexity of what FDA is asking for,” Mr. Sansoni said. “We’re working as diligently as possible to meet FDA requests.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A quick search for “antibacterial soap” on many online retailers’ websites will bring up dozens of products, some of which appear to contain an active ingredient that has been banned from the market.

copyright/kosziv/Thinkstock

The website of retail pharmacy giant Walgreens, for example, lists Dial Complete antibacterial soap with the active ingredient triclosan, a chemical the Food and Drug Administration banned along with others in 2017. The agency cited a lack of evidence that the ingredients were more effective than plain soap and water and that they were safe for long-term daily use.

A Dial Complete soap product page on Walgreens’ website lists, as of Feb. 4, 2020, an ingredient that was banned by the FDA.

Yet banned substances such as the triclosan in this Dial soap still commonly appear on online product descriptions, researchers found after searching the National Drug Code Directory and the websites of major online retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, and Target. The health effects of antibacterial ingredients “are very poorly defined,” said Chandler Rundle, MD, first author of the study, which was published in Dermatitis. Dr. Rundle is with the department of dermatology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The label on the back of the Dial soap bottle sold on Walgreens.com states that it “[k]ills more bacteria than ordinary liquid hand soap.” The website displays a close-up graphic of a hand that has been washed with Dial soap and that has fewer bacteria than a hand washed with “Others.” The graphic includes a dramatization disclaimer.

When asked about the product, a Walgreens corporate relations spokesperson checked the soap’s ingredients list they had on file from Dial’s parent company, Henkel North American Consumer Goods.

“I did not see that particular ingredient,” the representative said. Their ingredients list reflected a version of the soap that was updated after the ban. That label differs from Walgreens.com’s product information. The updated, ban-compliant version of the soap contains an alternative antibacterial compound, benzalkonium chloride. The spokesperson wasn’t sure of the source of the incorrect information on the website. Dial did not respond to a request for comment.

The ingredients list for Dial Complete soap on Walgreens.com shows FDA-banned triclosan as the active ingredient.

The 2017 FDA ban restricted the marketing of triclosan and triclocarban along with 17 other ingredients in consumer antibacterial soaps because manufacturers did not provide sufficient data to demonstrate that the ingredients were safe and effective, according to the FDA’s announcement. Independent research also showed that some ingredients worked no better than traditional soap and could create antibacterial-resistant microbes. Regular hand soap “still kills bacteria,” Dr. Rundle said. “The inclusion of an antibacterial substance does not make it better.”

Retailers (such as Walgreens) aren’t required to update their products’ online ingredient lists, which can pose a challenge for people who suffer from skin allergies, said Dr. Rundle. People at risk of having a reaction must read labels to verify the ingredients that are included.

Consumer antibacterial soap products that contain the banned compounds have largely been replaced with stand-ins, such as benzalkonium chloride and chloroxylenol, according to Dr. Rundle’s study. He and other researchers are trying to determine whether those compounds have the same shortcomings. “We’re talking 10-20 years down the line, and we’re worried about things like antibacterial resistance and systemic effects,” Dr. Rundle said.

The FDA has considered a ban on benzalkonium chloride and additional antibacterial ingredients, but in 2016, it granted ban deferrals, pending more research. The agency exchanged letters with the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), a trade association that represents companies, including Henkel. The FDA required that its companies fund research to show that the new antibacterial ingredients are safe and effective. The FDA granted subsequent annual extensions in 2017, 2018, and, most recently, in August 2019 to allow continued research into whether several ingredients are effective in soaps. In its most recent letter to the ACI, the FDA gave a checklist of research tasks to be submitted by July 2020.

The letter from August 2019 stated that the ACI, in its March 2019 progress report, failed to address milestones in studies of health care personnel handwashing for two of the substances. It also referenced the ACI’s lack of funding for the studies and reminded the organization that further deferrals would not be granted unless the ACI can show ongoing progress.

The ACI plans to meet with the FDA to have an in-depth discussion, Brian Sansoni, a spokesperson for the ACI, told Medscape Medical News. The ACI plans to give the FDA data that show the effectiveness of these ingredients over the course of several years, “due to the complexity of what FDA is asking for,” Mr. Sansoni said. “We’re working as diligently as possible to meet FDA requests.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.

Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes

The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.

Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.

“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.

Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.

Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.

The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
 

Driver mutations

Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.

A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.

Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.

For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.

In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
 

Mutational signatures

In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.

“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.

They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
 

Cancer evolution

One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”

They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.

In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.

“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
 

Implications for cancer care

“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.

“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.

On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.

The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.

SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/

A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.

Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes

The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.

Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.

“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.

Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.

Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.

The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
 

Driver mutations

Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.

A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.

Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.

For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.

In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
 

Mutational signatures

In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.

“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.

They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
 

Cancer evolution

One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”

They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.

In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.

“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
 

Implications for cancer care

“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.

“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.

On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.

The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.

SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/

A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.

Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes

The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.

Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.

“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.

Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.

Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.

The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
 

Driver mutations

Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.

A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.

Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.

For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.

In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
 

Mutational signatures

In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.

“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.

They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
 

Cancer evolution

One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”

They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.

In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.

“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
 

Implications for cancer care

“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.

“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.

On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.

The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.

SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The personal statement is a narrative written by an applicant to residency programs to discuss his/her interests. It is one of the few places in the residency application process where applicants can express their personalities.¹ Applicants believe the personal statement is an important opportunity to distinguish themselves from others, thus increasing their chances of successful matching, particularly in competitive specialties.^1,2

Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty, with 614 medical students applying for 440 total dermatology positions in 2016.³ According to the results of the 2016 National Resident Matching program director survey, 82% (27/33) of dermatology program directors reported that the personal statement was a factor in selecting applicants to interview. Furthermore, dermatology program directors, on average, rated personal statements as more important than the Medical Student Performance Evaluation/Dean’s Letter, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 scores, and class ranking/quartile.⁴

Prior studies have sought to evaluate the impact of personal statements on the application process. A 2014 study of personal statements submitted by dermatology residency applicants found that the prevalence of certain themes differed according to match outcome.⁵ However, some of the conclusions drawn in this study were not supported by the reported results or were based on low numbers of participants. The purpose of our study was to examine personal statements from applications to a dermatology program at a major academic institution. This study identified common themes in personal statements, allowing for an analysis of their association with successful matching into dermatology.

Methods

All applications to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) during the 2012 application cycle (N=422) were eligible. All submitted personal statements (N=422) were included with all personal identifiers removed prior to analysis. The investigator (D.S.M.) was blinded to other Electronic Residency Application Service data and match outcome.

The investigator initially reviewed a small, randomly selected subset of 20 personal statements to identify characteristics and common themes. The investigator then analyzed each of the personal statements to quantify the frequency of each theme. All personal statements submitted to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine were analyzed in this manner. Dermatology match outcomes for each applicant were confirmed later using dermatology program websites.

Differences in the prevalence of common themes between matched and unmatched applicants were calculated. Analysis of variance tests were used to determine if the differences in prevalence were statistically significant (P≤.05).

Results

All 422 submitted personal statements were evaluated, with 308 personal statements from applicants who matched and 114 personal statements from unmatched applicants. The screening of the initial subset of 20 personal statements resulted in a total of 9 content themes. The prevalence of each theme among matched and unmatched applicants is shown in the Table.

The most common themes among both matched and unmatched groups were personal accomplishments or attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. The prevalence of certain themes varied between matched and unmatched groups. Dermatologic cases were discussed significantly more frequently in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (60.06% vs 46.49%, P=.013). Name-dropping was more prevalent in the unmatched group (37.72%) compared to the matched group (26.95%). This difference in prevalence reached statistical significance (P=.014). Religious influences also were discussed more frequently in the unmatched group (5.26%) vs the matched group (0.65%) with statistical significance (P=.002).

Comment

This study of 422 personal statements submitted to a major academic institution showed that certain themes were common in personal statements among both matched and unmatched applicants. These themes included personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. This finding is consistent with prior studies that show common themes in the personal statements of applicants across a wide variety of specialties, including dermatology, anesthesiology, pediatrics, general surgery, internal medicine, and radiology.^5-10 Most commonly, applicants feel the need to justify why they chose their particular specialty, with Olazagasti et al⁵ (N=332) reporting that 70% of submitted dermatology personal statements explained why the applicant chose dermatology.

Certain themes, however, varied in prevalence between matched and unmatched groups in our study. Discussion of dermatologic cases was significantly more prevalent in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (P=.013), possibly because dermatology faculty enjoy hearing about cases and how the applicant responds and interacts with the cases. These data suggest that matched applicants focus more on characteristics specific to the clinical aspects of dermatology.

Conversely, name-dropping was significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.014). Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty. In 2016, applicants who matched into dermatology had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 249 with a mean number of 4.7 research experiences and 11.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications, which is higher than the average USMLE Step 1 score of 239 with a mean number of 3.8 research experiences and 8.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications for unmatched applicants.³ It is possible that residency selection committees may view name-dropping negatively if applicants choose to name-drop to strengthen their applications in comparison to more competitive candidates. Religious influences also were significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.002), but the overall frequency of religious influences was low (approximately 2% of all applicants).

The 422 personal statements examined in our study represent 83.1% of the total pool of applicants to postgraduate year 2 dermatology positions in 2012 (N=508).¹¹ Our data differed somewhat from an analysis of same-year dermatology personal statements of 65% of the national applicant pool.⁵ Olazagasti et al⁵ found that themes of a family member in medicine (more in unmatched), a desire to contribute to decreasing literature gap (more in matched), and a desire to better understand dermatologic pathophysiology (more in matched) to be statistically significant (P≤.05 for all). Unfortunately, these themes were found in a small number of applicants, with each being reported in less than 7%.⁵ Our study included 23% more unmatched candidates and likely better estimated potential significant differences between matched and unmatched applicants.

In the Results section, Olazagasti et al⁵ reported that matched applicants emphasized the study of cutaneous manifestations of systemic disease significantly more frequently than unmatched applicants. However, the P value in their report did not support this statement (P=.054). In addition, their Conclusion section discussed matched candidates including themes of “why dermatology” and unmatched candidates including a “personal story” as differences between groups. Again, their results did not show any statistical significance to support these recommendations.⁵ When providing medical student mentorship in a field as competitive as dermatology, faculty must be careful in giving accurate advice that, if at all possible, is supported by objective data rather than personal preference or anecdotes.

Our study was limited in that only personal statements of applicants to a single program in a specific specialty were analyzed. Applicants may have submitted personalized versions of their personal statements to specific schools, which may have biased the themes present in this subset of personal statements. Given these limitations, we are unable to determine if these results are generalizable to all dermatology residency applicants. Further limitation is that the analysis of personal statements is in itself a subjective process.

This study included a larger number of personal statements representing a larger proportion of the total pool of applicants in 2012 than prior studies examining personal statements of dermatology residency applicants. In addition, this study examined the ultimate dermatology match outcome for each applicant during the 2012 application cycle. Future investigations could explore the role of other factors in the residency selection process such as USMLE Step scores, community service, research experiences, and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society status.

Conclusion

There are common themes in the personal statements of dermatology residency applicants, including personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. In addition, discussion of dermatologic cases was statistically more prevalent in applicants who ultimately matched, whereas name-dropping and religious influences were more prevalent in applicants who did not match. This information may be useful to effectively mentor medical students about the writing process for the personal statement. Further investigation is needed to explore these associations and the role of other aspects of the application in the residency selection process.

The personal statement is a narrative written by an applicant to residency programs to discuss his/her interests. It is one of the few places in the residency application process where applicants can express their personalities.¹ Applicants believe the personal statement is an important opportunity to distinguish themselves from others, thus increasing their chances of successful matching, particularly in competitive specialties.^1,2

Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty, with 614 medical students applying for 440 total dermatology positions in 2016.³ According to the results of the 2016 National Resident Matching program director survey, 82% (27/33) of dermatology program directors reported that the personal statement was a factor in selecting applicants to interview. Furthermore, dermatology program directors, on average, rated personal statements as more important than the Medical Student Performance Evaluation/Dean’s Letter, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 scores, and class ranking/quartile.⁴

Prior studies have sought to evaluate the impact of personal statements on the application process. A 2014 study of personal statements submitted by dermatology residency applicants found that the prevalence of certain themes differed according to match outcome.⁵ However, some of the conclusions drawn in this study were not supported by the reported results or were based on low numbers of participants. The purpose of our study was to examine personal statements from applications to a dermatology program at a major academic institution. This study identified common themes in personal statements, allowing for an analysis of their association with successful matching into dermatology.

Methods

All applications to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) during the 2012 application cycle (N=422) were eligible. All submitted personal statements (N=422) were included with all personal identifiers removed prior to analysis. The investigator (D.S.M.) was blinded to other Electronic Residency Application Service data and match outcome.

The investigator initially reviewed a small, randomly selected subset of 20 personal statements to identify characteristics and common themes. The investigator then analyzed each of the personal statements to quantify the frequency of each theme. All personal statements submitted to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine were analyzed in this manner. Dermatology match outcomes for each applicant were confirmed later using dermatology program websites.

Differences in the prevalence of common themes between matched and unmatched applicants were calculated. Analysis of variance tests were used to determine if the differences in prevalence were statistically significant (P≤.05).

Results

All 422 submitted personal statements were evaluated, with 308 personal statements from applicants who matched and 114 personal statements from unmatched applicants. The screening of the initial subset of 20 personal statements resulted in a total of 9 content themes. The prevalence of each theme among matched and unmatched applicants is shown in the Table.

The most common themes among both matched and unmatched groups were personal accomplishments or attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. The prevalence of certain themes varied between matched and unmatched groups. Dermatologic cases were discussed significantly more frequently in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (60.06% vs 46.49%, P=.013). Name-dropping was more prevalent in the unmatched group (37.72%) compared to the matched group (26.95%). This difference in prevalence reached statistical significance (P=.014). Religious influences also were discussed more frequently in the unmatched group (5.26%) vs the matched group (0.65%) with statistical significance (P=.002).

Comment

This study of 422 personal statements submitted to a major academic institution showed that certain themes were common in personal statements among both matched and unmatched applicants. These themes included personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. This finding is consistent with prior studies that show common themes in the personal statements of applicants across a wide variety of specialties, including dermatology, anesthesiology, pediatrics, general surgery, internal medicine, and radiology.^5-10 Most commonly, applicants feel the need to justify why they chose their particular specialty, with Olazagasti et al⁵ (N=332) reporting that 70% of submitted dermatology personal statements explained why the applicant chose dermatology.

Certain themes, however, varied in prevalence between matched and unmatched groups in our study. Discussion of dermatologic cases was significantly more prevalent in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (P=.013), possibly because dermatology faculty enjoy hearing about cases and how the applicant responds and interacts with the cases. These data suggest that matched applicants focus more on characteristics specific to the clinical aspects of dermatology.

Conversely, name-dropping was significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.014). Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty. In 2016, applicants who matched into dermatology had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 249 with a mean number of 4.7 research experiences and 11.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications, which is higher than the average USMLE Step 1 score of 239 with a mean number of 3.8 research experiences and 8.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications for unmatched applicants.³ It is possible that residency selection committees may view name-dropping negatively if applicants choose to name-drop to strengthen their applications in comparison to more competitive candidates. Religious influences also were significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.002), but the overall frequency of religious influences was low (approximately 2% of all applicants).

The 422 personal statements examined in our study represent 83.1% of the total pool of applicants to postgraduate year 2 dermatology positions in 2012 (N=508).¹¹ Our data differed somewhat from an analysis of same-year dermatology personal statements of 65% of the national applicant pool.⁵ Olazagasti et al⁵ found that themes of a family member in medicine (more in unmatched), a desire to contribute to decreasing literature gap (more in matched), and a desire to better understand dermatologic pathophysiology (more in matched) to be statistically significant (P≤.05 for all). Unfortunately, these themes were found in a small number of applicants, with each being reported in less than 7%.⁵ Our study included 23% more unmatched candidates and likely better estimated potential significant differences between matched and unmatched applicants.

In the Results section, Olazagasti et al⁵ reported that matched applicants emphasized the study of cutaneous manifestations of systemic disease significantly more frequently than unmatched applicants. However, the P value in their report did not support this statement (P=.054). In addition, their Conclusion section discussed matched candidates including themes of “why dermatology” and unmatched candidates including a “personal story” as differences between groups. Again, their results did not show any statistical significance to support these recommendations.⁵ When providing medical student mentorship in a field as competitive as dermatology, faculty must be careful in giving accurate advice that, if at all possible, is supported by objective data rather than personal preference or anecdotes.

Our study was limited in that only personal statements of applicants to a single program in a specific specialty were analyzed. Applicants may have submitted personalized versions of their personal statements to specific schools, which may have biased the themes present in this subset of personal statements. Given these limitations, we are unable to determine if these results are generalizable to all dermatology residency applicants. Further limitation is that the analysis of personal statements is in itself a subjective process.

This study included a larger number of personal statements representing a larger proportion of the total pool of applicants in 2012 than prior studies examining personal statements of dermatology residency applicants. In addition, this study examined the ultimate dermatology match outcome for each applicant during the 2012 application cycle. Future investigations could explore the role of other factors in the residency selection process such as USMLE Step scores, community service, research experiences, and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society status.

Conclusion

There are common themes in the personal statements of dermatology residency applicants, including personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. In addition, discussion of dermatologic cases was statistically more prevalent in applicants who ultimately matched, whereas name-dropping and religious influences were more prevalent in applicants who did not match. This information may be useful to effectively mentor medical students about the writing process for the personal statement. Further investigation is needed to explore these associations and the role of other aspects of the application in the residency selection process.

The personal statement is a narrative written by an applicant to residency programs to discuss his/her interests. It is one of the few places in the residency application process where applicants can express their personalities.¹ Applicants believe the personal statement is an important opportunity to distinguish themselves from others, thus increasing their chances of successful matching, particularly in competitive specialties.^1,2

Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty, with 614 medical students applying for 440 total dermatology positions in 2016.³ According to the results of the 2016 National Resident Matching program director survey, 82% (27/33) of dermatology program directors reported that the personal statement was a factor in selecting applicants to interview. Furthermore, dermatology program directors, on average, rated personal statements as more important than the Medical Student Performance Evaluation/Dean’s Letter, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 scores, and class ranking/quartile.⁴

Prior studies have sought to evaluate the impact of personal statements on the application process. A 2014 study of personal statements submitted by dermatology residency applicants found that the prevalence of certain themes differed according to match outcome.⁵ However, some of the conclusions drawn in this study were not supported by the reported results or were based on low numbers of participants. The purpose of our study was to examine personal statements from applications to a dermatology program at a major academic institution. This study identified common themes in personal statements, allowing for an analysis of their association with successful matching into dermatology.

Methods

All applications to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) during the 2012 application cycle (N=422) were eligible. All submitted personal statements (N=422) were included with all personal identifiers removed prior to analysis. The investigator (D.S.M.) was blinded to other Electronic Residency Application Service data and match outcome.

The investigator initially reviewed a small, randomly selected subset of 20 personal statements to identify characteristics and common themes. The investigator then analyzed each of the personal statements to quantify the frequency of each theme. All personal statements submitted to the dermatology residency program at UNC School of Medicine were analyzed in this manner. Dermatology match outcomes for each applicant were confirmed later using dermatology program websites.

Differences in the prevalence of common themes between matched and unmatched applicants were calculated. Analysis of variance tests were used to determine if the differences in prevalence were statistically significant (P≤.05).

Results

All 422 submitted personal statements were evaluated, with 308 personal statements from applicants who matched and 114 personal statements from unmatched applicants. The screening of the initial subset of 20 personal statements resulted in a total of 9 content themes. The prevalence of each theme among matched and unmatched applicants is shown in the Table.

The most common themes among both matched and unmatched groups were personal accomplishments or attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. The prevalence of certain themes varied between matched and unmatched groups. Dermatologic cases were discussed significantly more frequently in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (60.06% vs 46.49%, P=.013). Name-dropping was more prevalent in the unmatched group (37.72%) compared to the matched group (26.95%). This difference in prevalence reached statistical significance (P=.014). Religious influences also were discussed more frequently in the unmatched group (5.26%) vs the matched group (0.65%) with statistical significance (P=.002).

Comment

This study of 422 personal statements submitted to a major academic institution showed that certain themes were common in personal statements among both matched and unmatched applicants. These themes included personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. This finding is consistent with prior studies that show common themes in the personal statements of applicants across a wide variety of specialties, including dermatology, anesthesiology, pediatrics, general surgery, internal medicine, and radiology.^5-10 Most commonly, applicants feel the need to justify why they chose their particular specialty, with Olazagasti et al⁵ (N=332) reporting that 70% of submitted dermatology personal statements explained why the applicant chose dermatology.

Certain themes, however, varied in prevalence between matched and unmatched groups in our study. Discussion of dermatologic cases was significantly more prevalent in the matched group compared to the unmatched group (P=.013), possibly because dermatology faculty enjoy hearing about cases and how the applicant responds and interacts with the cases. These data suggest that matched applicants focus more on characteristics specific to the clinical aspects of dermatology.

Conversely, name-dropping was significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.014). Dermatology is a highly competitive specialty. In 2016, applicants who matched into dermatology had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 249 with a mean number of 4.7 research experiences and 11.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications, which is higher than the average USMLE Step 1 score of 239 with a mean number of 3.8 research experiences and 8.7 abstracts, presentations, or publications for unmatched applicants.³ It is possible that residency selection committees may view name-dropping negatively if applicants choose to name-drop to strengthen their applications in comparison to more competitive candidates. Religious influences also were significantly more prevalent in the unmatched group (P=.002), but the overall frequency of religious influences was low (approximately 2% of all applicants).

The 422 personal statements examined in our study represent 83.1% of the total pool of applicants to postgraduate year 2 dermatology positions in 2012 (N=508).¹¹ Our data differed somewhat from an analysis of same-year dermatology personal statements of 65% of the national applicant pool.⁵ Olazagasti et al⁵ found that themes of a family member in medicine (more in unmatched), a desire to contribute to decreasing literature gap (more in matched), and a desire to better understand dermatologic pathophysiology (more in matched) to be statistically significant (P≤.05 for all). Unfortunately, these themes were found in a small number of applicants, with each being reported in less than 7%.⁵ Our study included 23% more unmatched candidates and likely better estimated potential significant differences between matched and unmatched applicants.

In the Results section, Olazagasti et al⁵ reported that matched applicants emphasized the study of cutaneous manifestations of systemic disease significantly more frequently than unmatched applicants. However, the P value in their report did not support this statement (P=.054). In addition, their Conclusion section discussed matched candidates including themes of “why dermatology” and unmatched candidates including a “personal story” as differences between groups. Again, their results did not show any statistical significance to support these recommendations.⁵ When providing medical student mentorship in a field as competitive as dermatology, faculty must be careful in giving accurate advice that, if at all possible, is supported by objective data rather than personal preference or anecdotes.

Our study was limited in that only personal statements of applicants to a single program in a specific specialty were analyzed. Applicants may have submitted personalized versions of their personal statements to specific schools, which may have biased the themes present in this subset of personal statements. Given these limitations, we are unable to determine if these results are generalizable to all dermatology residency applicants. Further limitation is that the analysis of personal statements is in itself a subjective process.

This study included a larger number of personal statements representing a larger proportion of the total pool of applicants in 2012 than prior studies examining personal statements of dermatology residency applicants. In addition, this study examined the ultimate dermatology match outcome for each applicant during the 2012 application cycle. Future investigations could explore the role of other factors in the residency selection process such as USMLE Step scores, community service, research experiences, and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society status.

Conclusion

There are common themes in the personal statements of dermatology residency applicants, including personal accomplishments/attributes and positive qualities of dermatology. In addition, discussion of dermatologic cases was statistically more prevalent in applicants who ultimately matched, whereas name-dropping and religious influences were more prevalent in applicants who did not match. This information may be useful to effectively mentor medical students about the writing process for the personal statement. Further investigation is needed to explore these associations and the role of other aspects of the application in the residency selection process.

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine.