User login
The Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management® is an independent, peer-reviewed journal offering evidence-based, practical information for improving the quality, safety, and value of health care.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Cardiologists concerned for patient safety after abortion ruling
Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.
That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.
“We know that the rising maternal mortality rate is predominantly driven by cardiovascular disease, women having children at older ages, and ... risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Jennifer H. Haythe, MD, told this news organization.
So the high court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and leaves the legality of abortion up to the 50 separate state legislatures, “is very relevant to cardiologists specifically,” said Dr. Haythe, who is director of cardiology in the cardio-obstetrics program at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The ruling “is going to have a huge effect on women who may not be able to tolerate pregnancy,” she said. Whether to terminate a pregnancy “is a relatively common discussion I have with women with bad heart failure about their risk of further decompensation, death, or needing a heart transplant or heart pump after delivery, or the risk of death in women with pulmonary hypertension.”
The high court’s decision “is a direct attack on the practice of medicine and really the sanctity of the patient-clinician relationship,” Rachel M. Bond, MD, director of Women’s Heart Health Systems Dignity Health of Arizona, told this news organization.
Physicians take an oath “that we should do no harm to our patients, and once the law or governance impacts that, it places us in a very vulnerable situation,” Dr. Bond said. “As a cardiologist who focuses a lot on high-risk pregnancies, I am worried and hesitant to give guidance to many of these patients in the states that may not have access to something that is a medical right, which at times is an abortion.”
She has colleagues in obstetrics in states where abortion is newly illegal who “don’t know what to do,” Dr. Bond said. Many have sought guidance from their legal teams, she said, “and many of them are now trying to figure out what is the best path.”
Pregnancy is “a very significant cardiovascular stress test, and women who may tolerate certain conditions reasonably well outside of the setting of pregnancy may have severe issues, not just for the mother, but for the baby as well,” Ki Park, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said in an interview.
“As clinicians, none of us like recommending a medically indicated abortion. But it is health care, just like any other medication or treatment that we advise to our patients in cases where the risk of the mother is excessively high and mortality risk is elevated,” said Dr. Park, who is cochair of the American College of Cardiology Cardio-Obstetrics Work Group.
Some conditions, such as pulmonary hypertension and severe aortic valve stenosis, during pregnancy are well recognized as very high risk, and there are various scoring systems to help clinicians with risk stratification, she observed. “But there are also a lot of gray areas where patients don’t necessarily fit into these risk scores that we use.”
So physician-patient discussions in high-risk pregnancies “are already complicated,” Dr. Park said. “Patients want to have options, and they look to us as physicians for guidance with regard to their risks. And if abortion is not available as an option, then part of our toolbox is no longer available to help us care for the mother.”
In the new legal climate, clinicians in states where abortion is illegal may well want to put more emphasis on preconception counseling, so more of their patients with high-risk conditions are aware of the new barriers to pregnancy termination.
“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”
Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.
“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”
Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”
Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”
A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”
Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.
“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”
The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”
The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”
The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”
Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.
That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.
“We know that the rising maternal mortality rate is predominantly driven by cardiovascular disease, women having children at older ages, and ... risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Jennifer H. Haythe, MD, told this news organization.
So the high court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and leaves the legality of abortion up to the 50 separate state legislatures, “is very relevant to cardiologists specifically,” said Dr. Haythe, who is director of cardiology in the cardio-obstetrics program at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The ruling “is going to have a huge effect on women who may not be able to tolerate pregnancy,” she said. Whether to terminate a pregnancy “is a relatively common discussion I have with women with bad heart failure about their risk of further decompensation, death, or needing a heart transplant or heart pump after delivery, or the risk of death in women with pulmonary hypertension.”
The high court’s decision “is a direct attack on the practice of medicine and really the sanctity of the patient-clinician relationship,” Rachel M. Bond, MD, director of Women’s Heart Health Systems Dignity Health of Arizona, told this news organization.
Physicians take an oath “that we should do no harm to our patients, and once the law or governance impacts that, it places us in a very vulnerable situation,” Dr. Bond said. “As a cardiologist who focuses a lot on high-risk pregnancies, I am worried and hesitant to give guidance to many of these patients in the states that may not have access to something that is a medical right, which at times is an abortion.”
She has colleagues in obstetrics in states where abortion is newly illegal who “don’t know what to do,” Dr. Bond said. Many have sought guidance from their legal teams, she said, “and many of them are now trying to figure out what is the best path.”
Pregnancy is “a very significant cardiovascular stress test, and women who may tolerate certain conditions reasonably well outside of the setting of pregnancy may have severe issues, not just for the mother, but for the baby as well,” Ki Park, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said in an interview.
“As clinicians, none of us like recommending a medically indicated abortion. But it is health care, just like any other medication or treatment that we advise to our patients in cases where the risk of the mother is excessively high and mortality risk is elevated,” said Dr. Park, who is cochair of the American College of Cardiology Cardio-Obstetrics Work Group.
Some conditions, such as pulmonary hypertension and severe aortic valve stenosis, during pregnancy are well recognized as very high risk, and there are various scoring systems to help clinicians with risk stratification, she observed. “But there are also a lot of gray areas where patients don’t necessarily fit into these risk scores that we use.”
So physician-patient discussions in high-risk pregnancies “are already complicated,” Dr. Park said. “Patients want to have options, and they look to us as physicians for guidance with regard to their risks. And if abortion is not available as an option, then part of our toolbox is no longer available to help us care for the mother.”
In the new legal climate, clinicians in states where abortion is illegal may well want to put more emphasis on preconception counseling, so more of their patients with high-risk conditions are aware of the new barriers to pregnancy termination.
“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”
Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.
“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”
Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”
Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”
A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”
Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.
“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”
The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”
The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”
The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”
Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.
That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.
“We know that the rising maternal mortality rate is predominantly driven by cardiovascular disease, women having children at older ages, and ... risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Jennifer H. Haythe, MD, told this news organization.
So the high court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and leaves the legality of abortion up to the 50 separate state legislatures, “is very relevant to cardiologists specifically,” said Dr. Haythe, who is director of cardiology in the cardio-obstetrics program at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The ruling “is going to have a huge effect on women who may not be able to tolerate pregnancy,” she said. Whether to terminate a pregnancy “is a relatively common discussion I have with women with bad heart failure about their risk of further decompensation, death, or needing a heart transplant or heart pump after delivery, or the risk of death in women with pulmonary hypertension.”
The high court’s decision “is a direct attack on the practice of medicine and really the sanctity of the patient-clinician relationship,” Rachel M. Bond, MD, director of Women’s Heart Health Systems Dignity Health of Arizona, told this news organization.
Physicians take an oath “that we should do no harm to our patients, and once the law or governance impacts that, it places us in a very vulnerable situation,” Dr. Bond said. “As a cardiologist who focuses a lot on high-risk pregnancies, I am worried and hesitant to give guidance to many of these patients in the states that may not have access to something that is a medical right, which at times is an abortion.”
She has colleagues in obstetrics in states where abortion is newly illegal who “don’t know what to do,” Dr. Bond said. Many have sought guidance from their legal teams, she said, “and many of them are now trying to figure out what is the best path.”
Pregnancy is “a very significant cardiovascular stress test, and women who may tolerate certain conditions reasonably well outside of the setting of pregnancy may have severe issues, not just for the mother, but for the baby as well,” Ki Park, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said in an interview.
“As clinicians, none of us like recommending a medically indicated abortion. But it is health care, just like any other medication or treatment that we advise to our patients in cases where the risk of the mother is excessively high and mortality risk is elevated,” said Dr. Park, who is cochair of the American College of Cardiology Cardio-Obstetrics Work Group.
Some conditions, such as pulmonary hypertension and severe aortic valve stenosis, during pregnancy are well recognized as very high risk, and there are various scoring systems to help clinicians with risk stratification, she observed. “But there are also a lot of gray areas where patients don’t necessarily fit into these risk scores that we use.”
So physician-patient discussions in high-risk pregnancies “are already complicated,” Dr. Park said. “Patients want to have options, and they look to us as physicians for guidance with regard to their risks. And if abortion is not available as an option, then part of our toolbox is no longer available to help us care for the mother.”
In the new legal climate, clinicians in states where abortion is illegal may well want to put more emphasis on preconception counseling, so more of their patients with high-risk conditions are aware of the new barriers to pregnancy termination.
“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”
Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.
“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”
Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”
Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”
A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”
Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.
“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”
The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”
The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”
The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”
Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and COVID: Vaccination off to slow start for the newly eligible
New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.
In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.
The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.
That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.
The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.
The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.
In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.
The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.
That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.
The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.
The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.
In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.
The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.
That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.
The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.
The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
‘Unexpected’: Breast cancer spreads most during sleep
a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”
“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.
The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.
The study was published online in Nature.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.
To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.
The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.
This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .
Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.
The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
Practice changing?
Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.
“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.
Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.
Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”
Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”
Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.
“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.
The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”
“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.
The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.
The study was published online in Nature.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.
To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.
The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.
This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .
Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.
The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
Practice changing?
Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.
“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.
Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.
Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”
Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”
Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.
“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.
The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”
“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.
The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.
The study was published online in Nature.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.
To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.
The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.
This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .
Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.
The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
Practice changing?
Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.
“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.
Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.
Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”
Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”
Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.
“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.
The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE
Good chemo vs. bad chemo: When too much is a bad thing
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.
The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.
Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.
However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.
The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.
They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.
One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).
“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.
Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.
“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.
Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.
“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”
Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”
He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”
Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”
No study funding was received.
FROM ASCO 2022
Racial/ethnic disparities exacerbated maternal death rise during 2020 pandemic.
U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.
Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.
The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.
The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.
“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.
“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”
A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.
Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.
Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).
COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).
Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.
Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.
“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.
In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.
“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”
While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”
He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.
The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.
“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”
The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.
In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.
They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.
Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”
This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.
U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.
Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.
The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.
The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.
“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.
“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”
A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.
Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.
Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).
COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).
Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.
Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.
“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.
In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.
“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”
While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”
He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.
The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.
“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”
The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.
In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.
They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.
Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”
This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.
U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.
Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.
The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.
The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.
“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.
“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”
A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.
Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.
Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).
COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).
Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.
Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.
“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.
In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.
“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”
While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”
He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.
The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.
“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”
The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.
In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.
They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.
Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”
This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Melanoma incidence is up, but death rates are down
CHICAGO – , according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.
“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.
Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).
“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).
The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.
On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.
CHICAGO – , according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.
“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.
Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).
“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).
The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.
On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.
CHICAGO – , according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.
“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.
Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).
“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).
The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.
On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.
The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.
AT ASCO 2022
CDC releases new details on mysterious hepatitis in children
A new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides further details on mysterious cases of pediatric hepatitis identified across the United States. While 45% of patients have tested positive for adenovirus infection, it is likely that these children “represent a heterogenous group of hepatitis etiologies,” the CDC authors wrote.
Of the 296 children diagnosed between Oct. 1, 2021, and June 15, 2022, in the United States, 18 have required liver transplants and 11 have died.
On April 21, 2022, the CDC issued an alert to providers to report pediatric hepatitis cases of unknown etiology in children under 10 after similar cases had been identified in Europe and the United States. While the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases over the past year, researchers from the CDC published data on June 14 that suggested pediatric hepatitis cases had not increased from 2017 to 2021.
This newest analysis, published Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provides additional demographic data on affected patients and explores possible causes, including previous infection with COVID-19. Investigators had earlier ruled out COVID-19 vaccination as a potential factor in these cases, as most children were unvaccinated or not yet eligible to receive the vaccine. According to the analysis, only five patients had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
The 296 cases included in the analysis occurred in 42 U.S. states and territories, and the median age for patients was 2 years and 2 months. Nearly 60% of patients were male (58.1%) and 40.9% were female. The largest percentage of cases occurred in Hispanic or Latino children (37.8%), followed by non-Hispanic White (32.4%) children. Black patients made up 9.8% of all cases, and 3.7% of affected children were of Asian descent. Vomiting, fatigue, and jaundice were all common symptoms, and about 90% (89.9%) of children required hospitalization..
Of 224 children tested for adenovirus, 44.6% were positive. The analysis also included information on 123 of these hepatitis patients tested for other various pathogens. Nearly 80% (98/123) received a COVID-19 test and just 10.2% were positive. About 26% of patients had previously had COVID-19, and hepatitis onset occurred, on average, 133 days after the reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Other viruses detected included rhinovirus/enterovirus (24.5%), rotavirus (14.0%), and acute Epstein-Barr virus (11.4%)
Simultaneous infection with SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus occurred in three patients.
There was no evidence of viral inclusions in the 36 patients who had pathological evaluation liver biopsies, explants, or autopsied tissue.
The findings suggest that there may be many different causes behind these severe hepatitis cases, and it is estimated that about one-third of hepatitis cases in children do not have a known cause. However, the identification of adenovirus infection in many cases “raises the question whether a new pattern of disease is emerging in this population or if adenovirus might be an underrecognized cause or cofactor in previously indeterminate cases of pediatric hepatitis,” the authors wrote. As the investigation continues, “further clinical data are needed to understand the cause of these cases and to assess the potential association with adenovirus.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides further details on mysterious cases of pediatric hepatitis identified across the United States. While 45% of patients have tested positive for adenovirus infection, it is likely that these children “represent a heterogenous group of hepatitis etiologies,” the CDC authors wrote.
Of the 296 children diagnosed between Oct. 1, 2021, and June 15, 2022, in the United States, 18 have required liver transplants and 11 have died.
On April 21, 2022, the CDC issued an alert to providers to report pediatric hepatitis cases of unknown etiology in children under 10 after similar cases had been identified in Europe and the United States. While the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases over the past year, researchers from the CDC published data on June 14 that suggested pediatric hepatitis cases had not increased from 2017 to 2021.
This newest analysis, published Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provides additional demographic data on affected patients and explores possible causes, including previous infection with COVID-19. Investigators had earlier ruled out COVID-19 vaccination as a potential factor in these cases, as most children were unvaccinated or not yet eligible to receive the vaccine. According to the analysis, only five patients had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
The 296 cases included in the analysis occurred in 42 U.S. states and territories, and the median age for patients was 2 years and 2 months. Nearly 60% of patients were male (58.1%) and 40.9% were female. The largest percentage of cases occurred in Hispanic or Latino children (37.8%), followed by non-Hispanic White (32.4%) children. Black patients made up 9.8% of all cases, and 3.7% of affected children were of Asian descent. Vomiting, fatigue, and jaundice were all common symptoms, and about 90% (89.9%) of children required hospitalization..
Of 224 children tested for adenovirus, 44.6% were positive. The analysis also included information on 123 of these hepatitis patients tested for other various pathogens. Nearly 80% (98/123) received a COVID-19 test and just 10.2% were positive. About 26% of patients had previously had COVID-19, and hepatitis onset occurred, on average, 133 days after the reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Other viruses detected included rhinovirus/enterovirus (24.5%), rotavirus (14.0%), and acute Epstein-Barr virus (11.4%)
Simultaneous infection with SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus occurred in three patients.
There was no evidence of viral inclusions in the 36 patients who had pathological evaluation liver biopsies, explants, or autopsied tissue.
The findings suggest that there may be many different causes behind these severe hepatitis cases, and it is estimated that about one-third of hepatitis cases in children do not have a known cause. However, the identification of adenovirus infection in many cases “raises the question whether a new pattern of disease is emerging in this population or if adenovirus might be an underrecognized cause or cofactor in previously indeterminate cases of pediatric hepatitis,” the authors wrote. As the investigation continues, “further clinical data are needed to understand the cause of these cases and to assess the potential association with adenovirus.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides further details on mysterious cases of pediatric hepatitis identified across the United States. While 45% of patients have tested positive for adenovirus infection, it is likely that these children “represent a heterogenous group of hepatitis etiologies,” the CDC authors wrote.
Of the 296 children diagnosed between Oct. 1, 2021, and June 15, 2022, in the United States, 18 have required liver transplants and 11 have died.
On April 21, 2022, the CDC issued an alert to providers to report pediatric hepatitis cases of unknown etiology in children under 10 after similar cases had been identified in Europe and the United States. While the United Kingdom has found an uptick in cases over the past year, researchers from the CDC published data on June 14 that suggested pediatric hepatitis cases had not increased from 2017 to 2021.
This newest analysis, published Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provides additional demographic data on affected patients and explores possible causes, including previous infection with COVID-19. Investigators had earlier ruled out COVID-19 vaccination as a potential factor in these cases, as most children were unvaccinated or not yet eligible to receive the vaccine. According to the analysis, only five patients had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
The 296 cases included in the analysis occurred in 42 U.S. states and territories, and the median age for patients was 2 years and 2 months. Nearly 60% of patients were male (58.1%) and 40.9% were female. The largest percentage of cases occurred in Hispanic or Latino children (37.8%), followed by non-Hispanic White (32.4%) children. Black patients made up 9.8% of all cases, and 3.7% of affected children were of Asian descent. Vomiting, fatigue, and jaundice were all common symptoms, and about 90% (89.9%) of children required hospitalization..
Of 224 children tested for adenovirus, 44.6% were positive. The analysis also included information on 123 of these hepatitis patients tested for other various pathogens. Nearly 80% (98/123) received a COVID-19 test and just 10.2% were positive. About 26% of patients had previously had COVID-19, and hepatitis onset occurred, on average, 133 days after the reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Other viruses detected included rhinovirus/enterovirus (24.5%), rotavirus (14.0%), and acute Epstein-Barr virus (11.4%)
Simultaneous infection with SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus occurred in three patients.
There was no evidence of viral inclusions in the 36 patients who had pathological evaluation liver biopsies, explants, or autopsied tissue.
The findings suggest that there may be many different causes behind these severe hepatitis cases, and it is estimated that about one-third of hepatitis cases in children do not have a known cause. However, the identification of adenovirus infection in many cases “raises the question whether a new pattern of disease is emerging in this population or if adenovirus might be an underrecognized cause or cofactor in previously indeterminate cases of pediatric hepatitis,” the authors wrote. As the investigation continues, “further clinical data are needed to understand the cause of these cases and to assess the potential association with adenovirus.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE MMWR
Pig-heart transplant case published with new details, insights
It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.
Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.
It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.
The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.
If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.
“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”
Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.
The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).
Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.
“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”
Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.
Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.
Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”
The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.
Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.
Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”
The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.
Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.
It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.
The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.
If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.
“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”
Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.
The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).
Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.
“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”
Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.
Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.
Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”
The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.
Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.
Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”
The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.
Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.
It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.
The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.
If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.
“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”
Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.
The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).
Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.
“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”
Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.
Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.
Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”
The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.
Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.
Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”
The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roe v. Wade: Medical groups react to Supreme Court decision
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noninvasive brain stimulation promising for COVID-related smell loss
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY, AND PSYCHIATRY