Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).

A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.

This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.

For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.

The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.

After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.

But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.

The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.

“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).

A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.

This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.

For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.

The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.

After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.

But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.

The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.

“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).

A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.

This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.

For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.

The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.

After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.

But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.

The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.

“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Doctors were significantly less likely to order colorectal cancer screening with the at-home test Cologuard (Exact Sciences) for Black patients and were more likely to order the test for Asian patients, new evidence reveals.

Investigators retrospectively studied 557,156 patients in the Mayo Clinic health system from 2012 to 2022. They found that Cologuard was ordered for 8.7% of Black patients, compared to 11.9% of White patients and 13.1% of Asian patients.

Both minority groups were less likely than White patients to undergo a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of Cologuard testing. Cologuard tests the stool for blood and DNA markers associated with colorectal cancer.

Although the researchers did not examine the reasons driving the disparities, lead investigator Ahmed Ouni, MD, told this news organization that “it could be patient preferences ... or there could be some bias as providers ourselves in how we present the data to patients.”

Dr. Ouni presented the findings on May 22 at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), held in person in San Diego and virtually.
 

Breakdown by physician specialty

“We looked at the specialty of physicians ordering these because we wanted to see where the disparity was coming from, if there was a disparity,” said Dr. Ouni, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

Just over half (51%) of the patients received care from family medicine physicians, 27% received care from internists, and 22% were seen by gastroenterologists.

Family physicians ordered Cologuard testing for 8.7% of Black patients, compared with 16.1% of White patients, a significant difference (P < .001). Internists ordered the test for 10.5% of Black patients and 11.1% of White patients (P <  .001). Gastroenterologists ordered Cologuard screening for 2.4% of Black patients and 3.2% of White patients (P = .009).

Gastroenterologists were 47% more likely to order Cologuard for Asian patients, and internists were 16% more likely to order it for this population than for White patients. However, the findings were not statistically significant for the overall cohort of Asian patients when the researchers adjusted for age and sex (P = 0.52).

Black patients were 25% less likely to have a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of undergoing a Cologuard test (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94), and Asian patients were 35% less likely (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82).
 

Ongoing and future research

Of the total study population, only 2.9% self-identified as Black; according to the 2020 U.S. Census, 12.4% of the population of the United States are Black persons.

When asked about the relatively low proportion of Black persons in the study, Dr. Ouni replied that the investigators are partnering with a Black physician group in the Jacksonville, Fla., area to expand the study to a more diverse population.

Additional plans include assessing how many positive Cologuard test results led to follow-up colonoscopies.

The investigators are also working with family physicians at the Mayo Clinic to examine how physicians explain colorectal cancer screening options to patients and are studying patient preferences regarding screening options, which include Cologuard, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood testing, CT colonography, and colonoscopy.

“We’re analyzing the data by ZIP code to see if this could be related to finances,” Dr. Ouni added. “So, if you’re Black or White and more financially impoverished, how does that affect how you view Cologuard and colorectal cancer screening?”
 

Some unanswered questions

“Overall this study supports other studies of a disparity in colorectal cancer screening for African Americans,” John M. Carethers, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment. “This is known for FIT and colonoscopy, and Cologuard, which is a genetic test in addition to FIT, appears to be in that same realm.”

“Noninvasive tests will have a role to reach populations who may not readily have access to colonoscopy,” said Dr. Carethers, John G. Searle Professor and chair of the department of internal medicine and professor of human genetics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president of the American Gastroenterological Association. “The key here is if the test is positive, it needs to be followed up with a colonoscopy.”

Dr. Carethers added that the study raises some unanswered questions; for example, does the cost difference between testing options make a difference?

“FIT is under $20, but Cologuard is generally $300 or more,” he said. What percentage of the study population were offered other options, such as FIT? How does insurance status affect screening in different populations?”

“The findings should be taken in context of what other screening options were offered to or elected by patients,” agreed Gregory S. Cooper, MD, professor of medicine and population and quantitative health sciences at Case Western Reserve University and a gastroenterologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center.

According to guidelines, patients can be offered a menu of options, including FIT, colonoscopy, and Cologuard, Dr. Cooper said in an interview.

“If more African Americans elected colonoscopy, for example, the findings may balance out,” said Dr. Cooper, who was not affiliated with the study. “It would also be of interest to know if the racial differences changed over time. With the pandemic, the use of noninvasive options, such as Cologuard, have increased.”

“I will note that specifically for colonoscopy in the United States, the disparity gap had been closing from about 15% to 18% 20 years ago to about 3% in 2020 pre-COVID,” Dr. Carethers added. “I am fearful that COVID may have led to a widening of that gap again as we get more data.”

“It is important that noninvasive tests for screening be a part of the portfolio of offerings to patients, as about 35% of eligible at-risk persons who need to be screened are not screened in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said.

The study was not industry sponsored. Dr. Ouni and Dr. Carethers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper has received consulting fees from Exact Sciences.

To help your patients understand their colorectal cancer screening options, send them to the AGA GI Patient Center.

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

Doctors were significantly less likely to order colorectal cancer screening with the at-home test Cologuard (Exact Sciences) for Black patients and were more likely to order the test for Asian patients, new evidence reveals.

Investigators retrospectively studied 557,156 patients in the Mayo Clinic health system from 2012 to 2022. They found that Cologuard was ordered for 8.7% of Black patients, compared to 11.9% of White patients and 13.1% of Asian patients.

Both minority groups were less likely than White patients to undergo a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of Cologuard testing. Cologuard tests the stool for blood and DNA markers associated with colorectal cancer.

Although the researchers did not examine the reasons driving the disparities, lead investigator Ahmed Ouni, MD, told this news organization that “it could be patient preferences ... or there could be some bias as providers ourselves in how we present the data to patients.”

Dr. Ouni presented the findings on May 22 at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), held in person in San Diego and virtually.
 

Breakdown by physician specialty

“We looked at the specialty of physicians ordering these because we wanted to see where the disparity was coming from, if there was a disparity,” said Dr. Ouni, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

Just over half (51%) of the patients received care from family medicine physicians, 27% received care from internists, and 22% were seen by gastroenterologists.

Family physicians ordered Cologuard testing for 8.7% of Black patients, compared with 16.1% of White patients, a significant difference (P < .001). Internists ordered the test for 10.5% of Black patients and 11.1% of White patients (P <  .001). Gastroenterologists ordered Cologuard screening for 2.4% of Black patients and 3.2% of White patients (P = .009).

Gastroenterologists were 47% more likely to order Cologuard for Asian patients, and internists were 16% more likely to order it for this population than for White patients. However, the findings were not statistically significant for the overall cohort of Asian patients when the researchers adjusted for age and sex (P = 0.52).

Black patients were 25% less likely to have a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of undergoing a Cologuard test (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94), and Asian patients were 35% less likely (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82).
 

Ongoing and future research

Of the total study population, only 2.9% self-identified as Black; according to the 2020 U.S. Census, 12.4% of the population of the United States are Black persons.

When asked about the relatively low proportion of Black persons in the study, Dr. Ouni replied that the investigators are partnering with a Black physician group in the Jacksonville, Fla., area to expand the study to a more diverse population.

Additional plans include assessing how many positive Cologuard test results led to follow-up colonoscopies.

The investigators are also working with family physicians at the Mayo Clinic to examine how physicians explain colorectal cancer screening options to patients and are studying patient preferences regarding screening options, which include Cologuard, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood testing, CT colonography, and colonoscopy.

“We’re analyzing the data by ZIP code to see if this could be related to finances,” Dr. Ouni added. “So, if you’re Black or White and more financially impoverished, how does that affect how you view Cologuard and colorectal cancer screening?”
 

Some unanswered questions

“Overall this study supports other studies of a disparity in colorectal cancer screening for African Americans,” John M. Carethers, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment. “This is known for FIT and colonoscopy, and Cologuard, which is a genetic test in addition to FIT, appears to be in that same realm.”

“Noninvasive tests will have a role to reach populations who may not readily have access to colonoscopy,” said Dr. Carethers, John G. Searle Professor and chair of the department of internal medicine and professor of human genetics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president of the American Gastroenterological Association. “The key here is if the test is positive, it needs to be followed up with a colonoscopy.”

Dr. Carethers added that the study raises some unanswered questions; for example, does the cost difference between testing options make a difference?

“FIT is under $20, but Cologuard is generally $300 or more,” he said. What percentage of the study population were offered other options, such as FIT? How does insurance status affect screening in different populations?”

“The findings should be taken in context of what other screening options were offered to or elected by patients,” agreed Gregory S. Cooper, MD, professor of medicine and population and quantitative health sciences at Case Western Reserve University and a gastroenterologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center.

According to guidelines, patients can be offered a menu of options, including FIT, colonoscopy, and Cologuard, Dr. Cooper said in an interview.

“If more African Americans elected colonoscopy, for example, the findings may balance out,” said Dr. Cooper, who was not affiliated with the study. “It would also be of interest to know if the racial differences changed over time. With the pandemic, the use of noninvasive options, such as Cologuard, have increased.”

“I will note that specifically for colonoscopy in the United States, the disparity gap had been closing from about 15% to 18% 20 years ago to about 3% in 2020 pre-COVID,” Dr. Carethers added. “I am fearful that COVID may have led to a widening of that gap again as we get more data.”

“It is important that noninvasive tests for screening be a part of the portfolio of offerings to patients, as about 35% of eligible at-risk persons who need to be screened are not screened in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said.

The study was not industry sponsored. Dr. Ouni and Dr. Carethers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper has received consulting fees from Exact Sciences.

To help your patients understand their colorectal cancer screening options, send them to the AGA GI Patient Center.

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

Doctors were significantly less likely to order colorectal cancer screening with the at-home test Cologuard (Exact Sciences) for Black patients and were more likely to order the test for Asian patients, new evidence reveals.

Investigators retrospectively studied 557,156 patients in the Mayo Clinic health system from 2012 to 2022. They found that Cologuard was ordered for 8.7% of Black patients, compared to 11.9% of White patients and 13.1% of Asian patients.

Both minority groups were less likely than White patients to undergo a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of Cologuard testing. Cologuard tests the stool for blood and DNA markers associated with colorectal cancer.

Although the researchers did not examine the reasons driving the disparities, lead investigator Ahmed Ouni, MD, told this news organization that “it could be patient preferences ... or there could be some bias as providers ourselves in how we present the data to patients.”

Dr. Ouni presented the findings on May 22 at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), held in person in San Diego and virtually.
 

Breakdown by physician specialty

“We looked at the specialty of physicians ordering these because we wanted to see where the disparity was coming from, if there was a disparity,” said Dr. Ouni, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

Just over half (51%) of the patients received care from family medicine physicians, 27% received care from internists, and 22% were seen by gastroenterologists.

Family physicians ordered Cologuard testing for 8.7% of Black patients, compared with 16.1% of White patients, a significant difference (P < .001). Internists ordered the test for 10.5% of Black patients and 11.1% of White patients (P <  .001). Gastroenterologists ordered Cologuard screening for 2.4% of Black patients and 3.2% of White patients (P = .009).

Gastroenterologists were 47% more likely to order Cologuard for Asian patients, and internists were 16% more likely to order it for this population than for White patients. However, the findings were not statistically significant for the overall cohort of Asian patients when the researchers adjusted for age and sex (P = 0.52).

Black patients were 25% less likely to have a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of undergoing a Cologuard test (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94), and Asian patients were 35% less likely (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82).
 

Ongoing and future research

Of the total study population, only 2.9% self-identified as Black; according to the 2020 U.S. Census, 12.4% of the population of the United States are Black persons.

When asked about the relatively low proportion of Black persons in the study, Dr. Ouni replied that the investigators are partnering with a Black physician group in the Jacksonville, Fla., area to expand the study to a more diverse population.

Additional plans include assessing how many positive Cologuard test results led to follow-up colonoscopies.

The investigators are also working with family physicians at the Mayo Clinic to examine how physicians explain colorectal cancer screening options to patients and are studying patient preferences regarding screening options, which include Cologuard, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood testing, CT colonography, and colonoscopy.

“We’re analyzing the data by ZIP code to see if this could be related to finances,” Dr. Ouni added. “So, if you’re Black or White and more financially impoverished, how does that affect how you view Cologuard and colorectal cancer screening?”
 

Some unanswered questions

“Overall this study supports other studies of a disparity in colorectal cancer screening for African Americans,” John M. Carethers, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment. “This is known for FIT and colonoscopy, and Cologuard, which is a genetic test in addition to FIT, appears to be in that same realm.”

“Noninvasive tests will have a role to reach populations who may not readily have access to colonoscopy,” said Dr. Carethers, John G. Searle Professor and chair of the department of internal medicine and professor of human genetics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president of the American Gastroenterological Association. “The key here is if the test is positive, it needs to be followed up with a colonoscopy.”

Dr. Carethers added that the study raises some unanswered questions; for example, does the cost difference between testing options make a difference?

“FIT is under $20, but Cologuard is generally $300 or more,” he said. What percentage of the study population were offered other options, such as FIT? How does insurance status affect screening in different populations?”

“The findings should be taken in context of what other screening options were offered to or elected by patients,” agreed Gregory S. Cooper, MD, professor of medicine and population and quantitative health sciences at Case Western Reserve University and a gastroenterologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center.

According to guidelines, patients can be offered a menu of options, including FIT, colonoscopy, and Cologuard, Dr. Cooper said in an interview.

“If more African Americans elected colonoscopy, for example, the findings may balance out,” said Dr. Cooper, who was not affiliated with the study. “It would also be of interest to know if the racial differences changed over time. With the pandemic, the use of noninvasive options, such as Cologuard, have increased.”

“I will note that specifically for colonoscopy in the United States, the disparity gap had been closing from about 15% to 18% 20 years ago to about 3% in 2020 pre-COVID,” Dr. Carethers added. “I am fearful that COVID may have led to a widening of that gap again as we get more data.”

“It is important that noninvasive tests for screening be a part of the portfolio of offerings to patients, as about 35% of eligible at-risk persons who need to be screened are not screened in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said.

The study was not industry sponsored. Dr. Ouni and Dr. Carethers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper has received consulting fees from Exact Sciences.

To help your patients understand their colorectal cancer screening options, send them to the AGA GI Patient Center.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

School shootings from 2020 to 2021 climbed to the highest point in 2 decades, according to a new report from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There were 93 shootings with casualties at public and private K-12 schools across the United States from 2020 to 2021, as compared with 23 in the 2000-2001 school year. The latest number included 43 incidents with deaths.

The annual report, which examines crime and safety in schools and colleges, also found a rise in cyberbullying and verbal abuse or disrespect of teachers during the past decade.

“While the lasting impact of these crime and safety issues cannot be measured in statistics alone, these data are valuable to the efforts of our policymakers, school officials and community members to identify and implement preventive and responsive measures,” Peggy Carr, PhD, the commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics, said in a statement.

The report used a broad definition of shootings, which included instances when guns were fired or flashed on school property, as well as when a bullet hit school grounds for any reason and shootings that happened on school property during remote instruction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 311,000 children at 331 schools have gone through gun violence since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, according to The Washington Post.

“The increase in shootings in schools is likely a consequence of an overall increase in gun violence and not specific to schools,” Dewey Cornell, PhD, a professor of education at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, told the newspaper.

“However, most schools will never have a shooting, and their main problems will be fighting and bullying,” he said.

Between 2009 and 2020, the rate of nonfatal criminal victimization, including theft and violent crimes, decreased for ages 12-18, the report found. The rate fell from 51 victimizations per 1,000 students to 11. A major portion of the decline happened during the first year of the pandemic.

Lower percentages of public schools reported certain issues from 2019 to 2020 than from 2009 to 2010, the report found. For instance, 15% of schools reported student bullying at least once a week, as compared with 23% a decade ago. Student sexual harassment of other students dropped from 3% to 2%, and student harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity dropped from 3% to 2%.

At the same time, teachers faced more hardships, the report found. Schools reporting verbal abuse of teachers at least once a week rose to 10% in the 2019-2020 school year, as compared with 5% in the 2009-2010 school year. Schools reporting acts of disrespect for teachers climbed from 9% to 15%.

The percentage of schools that reported cyberbullying at least once a week doubled during the decade, rising from 8% in 2009-2010 to 16% in 2019-2020, the report found. The prominence of social media has likely added to that increase, the Post reported.

What’s more, about 55% of public schools offered mental health assessments in 2019-2020, and 42% offered mental health treatment services, the report found. The low rates could be linked to not having enough funding or access to licensed professionals, the newspaper reported.

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

School shootings from 2020 to 2021 climbed to the highest point in 2 decades, according to a new report from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There were 93 shootings with casualties at public and private K-12 schools across the United States from 2020 to 2021, as compared with 23 in the 2000-2001 school year. The latest number included 43 incidents with deaths.

The annual report, which examines crime and safety in schools and colleges, also found a rise in cyberbullying and verbal abuse or disrespect of teachers during the past decade.

“While the lasting impact of these crime and safety issues cannot be measured in statistics alone, these data are valuable to the efforts of our policymakers, school officials and community members to identify and implement preventive and responsive measures,” Peggy Carr, PhD, the commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics, said in a statement.

The report used a broad definition of shootings, which included instances when guns were fired or flashed on school property, as well as when a bullet hit school grounds for any reason and shootings that happened on school property during remote instruction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 311,000 children at 331 schools have gone through gun violence since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, according to The Washington Post.

“The increase in shootings in schools is likely a consequence of an overall increase in gun violence and not specific to schools,” Dewey Cornell, PhD, a professor of education at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, told the newspaper.

“However, most schools will never have a shooting, and their main problems will be fighting and bullying,” he said.

Between 2009 and 2020, the rate of nonfatal criminal victimization, including theft and violent crimes, decreased for ages 12-18, the report found. The rate fell from 51 victimizations per 1,000 students to 11. A major portion of the decline happened during the first year of the pandemic.

Lower percentages of public schools reported certain issues from 2019 to 2020 than from 2009 to 2010, the report found. For instance, 15% of schools reported student bullying at least once a week, as compared with 23% a decade ago. Student sexual harassment of other students dropped from 3% to 2%, and student harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity dropped from 3% to 2%.

At the same time, teachers faced more hardships, the report found. Schools reporting verbal abuse of teachers at least once a week rose to 10% in the 2019-2020 school year, as compared with 5% in the 2009-2010 school year. Schools reporting acts of disrespect for teachers climbed from 9% to 15%.

The percentage of schools that reported cyberbullying at least once a week doubled during the decade, rising from 8% in 2009-2010 to 16% in 2019-2020, the report found. The prominence of social media has likely added to that increase, the Post reported.

What’s more, about 55% of public schools offered mental health assessments in 2019-2020, and 42% offered mental health treatment services, the report found. The low rates could be linked to not having enough funding or access to licensed professionals, the newspaper reported.

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

School shootings from 2020 to 2021 climbed to the highest point in 2 decades, according to a new report from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There were 93 shootings with casualties at public and private K-12 schools across the United States from 2020 to 2021, as compared with 23 in the 2000-2001 school year. The latest number included 43 incidents with deaths.

The annual report, which examines crime and safety in schools and colleges, also found a rise in cyberbullying and verbal abuse or disrespect of teachers during the past decade.

“While the lasting impact of these crime and safety issues cannot be measured in statistics alone, these data are valuable to the efforts of our policymakers, school officials and community members to identify and implement preventive and responsive measures,” Peggy Carr, PhD, the commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics, said in a statement.

The report used a broad definition of shootings, which included instances when guns were fired or flashed on school property, as well as when a bullet hit school grounds for any reason and shootings that happened on school property during remote instruction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 311,000 children at 331 schools have gone through gun violence since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, according to The Washington Post.

“The increase in shootings in schools is likely a consequence of an overall increase in gun violence and not specific to schools,” Dewey Cornell, PhD, a professor of education at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, told the newspaper.

“However, most schools will never have a shooting, and their main problems will be fighting and bullying,” he said.

Between 2009 and 2020, the rate of nonfatal criminal victimization, including theft and violent crimes, decreased for ages 12-18, the report found. The rate fell from 51 victimizations per 1,000 students to 11. A major portion of the decline happened during the first year of the pandemic.

Lower percentages of public schools reported certain issues from 2019 to 2020 than from 2009 to 2010, the report found. For instance, 15% of schools reported student bullying at least once a week, as compared with 23% a decade ago. Student sexual harassment of other students dropped from 3% to 2%, and student harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity dropped from 3% to 2%.

At the same time, teachers faced more hardships, the report found. Schools reporting verbal abuse of teachers at least once a week rose to 10% in the 2019-2020 school year, as compared with 5% in the 2009-2010 school year. Schools reporting acts of disrespect for teachers climbed from 9% to 15%.

The percentage of schools that reported cyberbullying at least once a week doubled during the decade, rising from 8% in 2009-2010 to 16% in 2019-2020, the report found. The prominence of social media has likely added to that increase, the Post reported.

What’s more, about 55% of public schools offered mental health assessments in 2019-2020, and 42% offered mental health treatment services, the report found. The low rates could be linked to not having enough funding or access to licensed professionals, the newspaper reported.

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

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

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

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

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

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