Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

Cancer care is not a top priority for the United Nations agency that is helping Ukrainian refugees across the border into neighboring countries, which makes the role of oncology groups vitally important.

“They’re trying to deal with an extremely vulnerable and traumatized population – children who’ve lost their families, elderly who are confused and potentially abandoned,” commented Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD.

“The triage that’s happening on the border is not focusing on noncommunicable diseases,” he continued. “We know from previous crises that many cancer patients are lost; they simply do not present with their symptoms once they become refugees, and that’s going to become a really big issue.”

Oncology groups are needed to “provide the navigation, the treatment, and also the intelligence to ensure we deliver excellent cancer care where it’s needed for our Ukrainian friends,” he added. Dr. Sullivan is a member of the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee and is director of the Institute of Cancer Policy at King’s College London.

He was speaking at a virtual briefing organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Cancer Organisation (ECO), which have joined forces to centralize cancer care efforts.

With an estimated 3.3 million refugees having already crossed Ukraine’s borders, neighboring countries are experiencing an approximately 5% increase in their overall populations, making increased demand for cancer care inevitable, said Dr. Sullivan.

“Suggestions are that with 4 million refugees, you’re going to be looking at an increase of 13,000-16,000 cancer patients per month. ... But it will take time for the issue to evolve. At the moment, people are not being overwhelmed ... but there’s no doubt cancer care capacity for host countries is going to be an issue in the future.”

So far, about 2 million refugees are in Poland, where cancer centers have experienced a 10% increase in new patients since the war started, said Piotr Rutkowski, MD, PhD, professor of surgical oncology at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology in Warsaw.

“Of course, our resources are limited,” he said, adding that efforts are underway to accredit Ukrainian health care workers to work in Poland. “It’s unpredictable how the health care system in Europe can overcome these difficulties.”

“Until now, I don’t think any cancer patients have not received care, so still, we are in a positive situation, but the waiting list can enlarge in the near future,” Dr. Rutkowsli commented.

Indeed, the anticipated increase will “likely exceed the possibilities of the Polish health system” soon, warned Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor of clinical oncology and radiotherapy and the head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.

Although there is an EU international agreement for a more widespread allocation of cancer patients, “when they come to Poland, many of them want to be treated in Poland, because they have family here, the language is more familiar.”

Dr. Jassem suggests the best way to avoid overwhelming host cancer centers is to triage patients directly from Ukraine. “Some therapies shouldn’t be interrupted. So, for example, radiotherapy started in Ukraine should be continued there, but otherwise, chemotherapy can be continued elsewhere, surgery may be postponed and done elsewhere. These are the decisions that should be considered in Ukraine, and then patients who are selected for particular therapies should be reallocated to other countries,” he suggested.

Romania has seen an influx of about 400,000 refugees, including cancer patients seeking systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or follow-up, said Nicoleta Antone, MD, a medical oncologist at the Cancer Institute of Ion Chiricuta in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. “We have seen patients mainly with breast cancer because most of the refugees [with cancer] are women looking for systemic therapy, but also all the other tumor types, both solid and hematologic tumors.”

Dr. Sullivan says attempts by EU member states to address cancer needs are complicated by the fact that many refugees are still on the move. They have been passing through their initial host countries and moving on to Greece, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Turkey, “making the therapeutic geographies at any potential time quite challenging to keep an eye on.” Other countries, such as Moldova, are not part of the EU, “so we dealing with some really quite complex political and financial issues.”

The situation calls for a broader approach to refugees generally, he added. “We’re talking free cancer care for Ukrainian patients, but there’s also, of course, this dialogue of ensuring there’s free care for all refugees. Europe already has a large refugee contingent from other countries, so there’s no doubt this is an opportunity to talk more broadly about cancer care for refugees and also progressive universalism.

“You can’t have rules for one set of patients and a different set of rules for another set of patients, so there’s going to be a real issue around fairness and equity which Europe is going to have to address,” he said.

In an attempt, ASCO and ECO have joined forces in a special network, noted Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO.

“The ECO/ASCO Special Network is all about collaboration and coordination across professional societies, across cancer patient groups, across academic and other clinical centers. We’re providing information in the various national languages and trying to amplify the work that each of us is doing. ... We’re sharing intelligence, regular reports from the field, information, experience, and most of all, contacts. We’re all being approached individually about people who need help or people who want to help, and we’re trying to bring this all together in a focused way.”

Separately, there is also an ASCO resource page, as well as an ECO resource page.

The American Cancer Society also has patient resources on their site, including a 24-hour international call center in multiple languages and a Volunteer Corp of Clinicians, which currently has 123 active volunteers (and another 300 applicants) available to answer questions.

Europe and other countries must consider both a medium and a long-term commitment to refugees with cancer, said Dr. Sullivan. “Because even if the war stopped tomorrow, it’s going to take between a year and a year and a half to rebuild cancer care in Ukraine.”

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

Cancer care is not a top priority for the United Nations agency that is helping Ukrainian refugees across the border into neighboring countries, which makes the role of oncology groups vitally important.

“They’re trying to deal with an extremely vulnerable and traumatized population – children who’ve lost their families, elderly who are confused and potentially abandoned,” commented Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD.

“The triage that’s happening on the border is not focusing on noncommunicable diseases,” he continued. “We know from previous crises that many cancer patients are lost; they simply do not present with their symptoms once they become refugees, and that’s going to become a really big issue.”

Oncology groups are needed to “provide the navigation, the treatment, and also the intelligence to ensure we deliver excellent cancer care where it’s needed for our Ukrainian friends,” he added. Dr. Sullivan is a member of the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee and is director of the Institute of Cancer Policy at King’s College London.

He was speaking at a virtual briefing organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Cancer Organisation (ECO), which have joined forces to centralize cancer care efforts.

With an estimated 3.3 million refugees having already crossed Ukraine’s borders, neighboring countries are experiencing an approximately 5% increase in their overall populations, making increased demand for cancer care inevitable, said Dr. Sullivan.

“Suggestions are that with 4 million refugees, you’re going to be looking at an increase of 13,000-16,000 cancer patients per month. ... But it will take time for the issue to evolve. At the moment, people are not being overwhelmed ... but there’s no doubt cancer care capacity for host countries is going to be an issue in the future.”

So far, about 2 million refugees are in Poland, where cancer centers have experienced a 10% increase in new patients since the war started, said Piotr Rutkowski, MD, PhD, professor of surgical oncology at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology in Warsaw.

“Of course, our resources are limited,” he said, adding that efforts are underway to accredit Ukrainian health care workers to work in Poland. “It’s unpredictable how the health care system in Europe can overcome these difficulties.”

“Until now, I don’t think any cancer patients have not received care, so still, we are in a positive situation, but the waiting list can enlarge in the near future,” Dr. Rutkowsli commented.

Indeed, the anticipated increase will “likely exceed the possibilities of the Polish health system” soon, warned Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor of clinical oncology and radiotherapy and the head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.

Although there is an EU international agreement for a more widespread allocation of cancer patients, “when they come to Poland, many of them want to be treated in Poland, because they have family here, the language is more familiar.”

Dr. Jassem suggests the best way to avoid overwhelming host cancer centers is to triage patients directly from Ukraine. “Some therapies shouldn’t be interrupted. So, for example, radiotherapy started in Ukraine should be continued there, but otherwise, chemotherapy can be continued elsewhere, surgery may be postponed and done elsewhere. These are the decisions that should be considered in Ukraine, and then patients who are selected for particular therapies should be reallocated to other countries,” he suggested.

Romania has seen an influx of about 400,000 refugees, including cancer patients seeking systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or follow-up, said Nicoleta Antone, MD, a medical oncologist at the Cancer Institute of Ion Chiricuta in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. “We have seen patients mainly with breast cancer because most of the refugees [with cancer] are women looking for systemic therapy, but also all the other tumor types, both solid and hematologic tumors.”

Dr. Sullivan says attempts by EU member states to address cancer needs are complicated by the fact that many refugees are still on the move. They have been passing through their initial host countries and moving on to Greece, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Turkey, “making the therapeutic geographies at any potential time quite challenging to keep an eye on.” Other countries, such as Moldova, are not part of the EU, “so we dealing with some really quite complex political and financial issues.”

The situation calls for a broader approach to refugees generally, he added. “We’re talking free cancer care for Ukrainian patients, but there’s also, of course, this dialogue of ensuring there’s free care for all refugees. Europe already has a large refugee contingent from other countries, so there’s no doubt this is an opportunity to talk more broadly about cancer care for refugees and also progressive universalism.

“You can’t have rules for one set of patients and a different set of rules for another set of patients, so there’s going to be a real issue around fairness and equity which Europe is going to have to address,” he said.

In an attempt, ASCO and ECO have joined forces in a special network, noted Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO.

“The ECO/ASCO Special Network is all about collaboration and coordination across professional societies, across cancer patient groups, across academic and other clinical centers. We’re providing information in the various national languages and trying to amplify the work that each of us is doing. ... We’re sharing intelligence, regular reports from the field, information, experience, and most of all, contacts. We’re all being approached individually about people who need help or people who want to help, and we’re trying to bring this all together in a focused way.”

Separately, there is also an ASCO resource page, as well as an ECO resource page.

The American Cancer Society also has patient resources on their site, including a 24-hour international call center in multiple languages and a Volunteer Corp of Clinicians, which currently has 123 active volunteers (and another 300 applicants) available to answer questions.

Europe and other countries must consider both a medium and a long-term commitment to refugees with cancer, said Dr. Sullivan. “Because even if the war stopped tomorrow, it’s going to take between a year and a year and a half to rebuild cancer care in Ukraine.”

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

Cancer care is not a top priority for the United Nations agency that is helping Ukrainian refugees across the border into neighboring countries, which makes the role of oncology groups vitally important.

“They’re trying to deal with an extremely vulnerable and traumatized population – children who’ve lost their families, elderly who are confused and potentially abandoned,” commented Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD.

“The triage that’s happening on the border is not focusing on noncommunicable diseases,” he continued. “We know from previous crises that many cancer patients are lost; they simply do not present with their symptoms once they become refugees, and that’s going to become a really big issue.”

Oncology groups are needed to “provide the navigation, the treatment, and also the intelligence to ensure we deliver excellent cancer care where it’s needed for our Ukrainian friends,” he added. Dr. Sullivan is a member of the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee and is director of the Institute of Cancer Policy at King’s College London.

He was speaking at a virtual briefing organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Cancer Organisation (ECO), which have joined forces to centralize cancer care efforts.

With an estimated 3.3 million refugees having already crossed Ukraine’s borders, neighboring countries are experiencing an approximately 5% increase in their overall populations, making increased demand for cancer care inevitable, said Dr. Sullivan.

“Suggestions are that with 4 million refugees, you’re going to be looking at an increase of 13,000-16,000 cancer patients per month. ... But it will take time for the issue to evolve. At the moment, people are not being overwhelmed ... but there’s no doubt cancer care capacity for host countries is going to be an issue in the future.”

So far, about 2 million refugees are in Poland, where cancer centers have experienced a 10% increase in new patients since the war started, said Piotr Rutkowski, MD, PhD, professor of surgical oncology at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology in Warsaw.

“Of course, our resources are limited,” he said, adding that efforts are underway to accredit Ukrainian health care workers to work in Poland. “It’s unpredictable how the health care system in Europe can overcome these difficulties.”

“Until now, I don’t think any cancer patients have not received care, so still, we are in a positive situation, but the waiting list can enlarge in the near future,” Dr. Rutkowsli commented.

Indeed, the anticipated increase will “likely exceed the possibilities of the Polish health system” soon, warned Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor of clinical oncology and radiotherapy and the head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.

Although there is an EU international agreement for a more widespread allocation of cancer patients, “when they come to Poland, many of them want to be treated in Poland, because they have family here, the language is more familiar.”

Dr. Jassem suggests the best way to avoid overwhelming host cancer centers is to triage patients directly from Ukraine. “Some therapies shouldn’t be interrupted. So, for example, radiotherapy started in Ukraine should be continued there, but otherwise, chemotherapy can be continued elsewhere, surgery may be postponed and done elsewhere. These are the decisions that should be considered in Ukraine, and then patients who are selected for particular therapies should be reallocated to other countries,” he suggested.

Romania has seen an influx of about 400,000 refugees, including cancer patients seeking systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or follow-up, said Nicoleta Antone, MD, a medical oncologist at the Cancer Institute of Ion Chiricuta in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. “We have seen patients mainly with breast cancer because most of the refugees [with cancer] are women looking for systemic therapy, but also all the other tumor types, both solid and hematologic tumors.”

Dr. Sullivan says attempts by EU member states to address cancer needs are complicated by the fact that many refugees are still on the move. They have been passing through their initial host countries and moving on to Greece, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Turkey, “making the therapeutic geographies at any potential time quite challenging to keep an eye on.” Other countries, such as Moldova, are not part of the EU, “so we dealing with some really quite complex political and financial issues.”

The situation calls for a broader approach to refugees generally, he added. “We’re talking free cancer care for Ukrainian patients, but there’s also, of course, this dialogue of ensuring there’s free care for all refugees. Europe already has a large refugee contingent from other countries, so there’s no doubt this is an opportunity to talk more broadly about cancer care for refugees and also progressive universalism.

“You can’t have rules for one set of patients and a different set of rules for another set of patients, so there’s going to be a real issue around fairness and equity which Europe is going to have to address,” he said.

In an attempt, ASCO and ECO have joined forces in a special network, noted Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO.

“The ECO/ASCO Special Network is all about collaboration and coordination across professional societies, across cancer patient groups, across academic and other clinical centers. We’re providing information in the various national languages and trying to amplify the work that each of us is doing. ... We’re sharing intelligence, regular reports from the field, information, experience, and most of all, contacts. We’re all being approached individually about people who need help or people who want to help, and we’re trying to bring this all together in a focused way.”

Separately, there is also an ASCO resource page, as well as an ECO resource page.

The American Cancer Society also has patient resources on their site, including a 24-hour international call center in multiple languages and a Volunteer Corp of Clinicians, which currently has 123 active volunteers (and another 300 applicants) available to answer questions.

Europe and other countries must consider both a medium and a long-term commitment to refugees with cancer, said Dr. Sullivan. “Because even if the war stopped tomorrow, it’s going to take between a year and a year and a half to rebuild cancer care in Ukraine.”

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

The use of an electronic clinical decision support tool called “ePNa” reduced severity-adjusted, 30-day, all-cause mortality by 38% across 16 community hospitals in Utah, compared with predeployment levels, a 3-year, pragmatic, cluster-controlled study shows.

“We designed the ePNa specifically to require minimal input from the clinician so everything it does is already in the electronic medical record,” Nathan Dean, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“So it’s actually putting the guideline recommendations into effect for physicians so that they can make better decisions by having all this information – it’s a comprehensive best practice kind of tool where best practices are likely to make the biggest difference for patients with a high severity of illness,” he added.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.


 

Guideline-based tool

The ePNa makes use of pneumonia guidelines of 2007 and 2019 from the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America. The system was deployed into six geographic clusters of 16 Intermountain hospital EDs at 2-month intervals between December 2017 and November 2018. Simultaneous deployment was impractical, as implementation of the tool takes education, monitoring, and feedback that can be facilitated by focusing on only a few hospitals at a time.

The decision support tool gathers key patient indicators including age, fever, oxygen saturation, vital signs, and laboratory and chest imaging results to offer recommendations on care, including appropriate antibiotic therapy, microbiology studies, and whether a given patient should be sent to the intensive care unit, admitted to hospital, or may safely be discharged home.

Investigators analyzed a total of 6,848 patients, of whom 4,536 were managed for pneumonia before the ePNa was deployed and 2,312 after deployment.

The median age of patients was 67 years (interquartile range, 50-79 years). Roughly half were female and almost all were White. “Observed 30-day all-cause mortality including both outpatients and inpatients was 8.6% before deployment versus 4.8% after deployment of ePNa,” Dr. Dean and colleagues reported.

Adjusted for severity of illness, the odds ratio for lower mortality post-ePNa launch was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.79; P < .0010) “and lower morality was consistent across hospital clusters.”

Compared with patients who were discharged home, reductions in mortality were greatest in patients who were directly admitted to ICUs from the ED (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.77; P = .01). The OR for patients admitted to the medical floor was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.1; P = .09), which did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Dean explained that the reductions in mortality were seen among those with the most severe illness, in whom best practices would benefit the most. In contrast, patients who are sent home on an antibiotic are at low risk for mortality while patients admitted to the medical floor may well have another, more lethal illness from which they end up dying, rather than simple pneumonia.

“For me, this was a clear demonstration that these best practices made the biggest difference in patients who were sick and who did not have any underlying disease that was going to kill them anyway,” he emphasized. On the other hand, both 30-day mortality and 7-day secondary hospital admission were higher among patients the tool recommended for hospital ward admission but who were discharged home from the ED.

“This was an unexpected finding,” Dr. Dean observed. However, as he explained, the authors reviewed 25% of randomly selected patients who fell into this subgroup and discovered that the ePNa tool was used in only about 20% of patients – “so doctors did not use the tool in the majority of this group.”

In addition, some of these patients declined hospital admission, so the doctors may have recommended that they be admitted but the patients said no. “The hypothesis here is that if they had been admitted to the hospital, they may have had a lower mortality risk,” Dr. Dean said.
 

Noticeable changes

Another noticeable change following the introduction of the ePNa tool was that guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing increased in the 8 hours after patients presented to the ED, from 79.5% prior to the tool’s launch to 87.9%, again after adjusting for pneumonia severity (P < .001). Use of broad-spectrum antibiotics was not significantly different between the two treatment intervals, but administration of antibiotics active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus dropped significantly between the two treatment intervals (P < .001). And the mean time from admission to the ED to the first antibiotic taken was slightly faster, improving from 159.4 minutes (95% CI, 156.9-161.9 minutes) prior to the ePNa launch to 150.9 minutes (95% CI, 144.1-157.8) post deployment (P < .001).

“Overall outpatient disposition for treatment of pneumonia from the emergency department increased from 29.2% before ePNa to 46.9% [post ePNA],” the authors noted, while a similar increase was observed in patients for whom ePNA recommended outpatient care – from 49.2% pre-ePNA to 66.6% after ePNA.

Both hospital ward admission and admission to the ICU decreased after ePNa had been introduced. Despite a significant increase in the percentage of patients being discharged home, neither 7-day secondary hospital admission nor severity-adjusted, 30-day mortality were significantly different before versus after the introduction of ePNa, the authors stressed.

A limitation of the study was that the trial was confined to a single health care system in one region of the United States with a patient population that may differ from that in other regions.
 

Reason for its success

Asked to comment on the findings, Adam Balls, MD, emergency department chair, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, suggested that the reason the ePNa tool has been so successful at improving care for pneumonia patients is that it puts the guidelines directly into the hands of individual providers and tells them what’s going on. (Dr. Balls was not involved in the study.) “The tool allows us to take into consideration various clinical features – a patient’s oxygen requirements and whether or not they had prior complicated pneumonias that required additional antibiotics, for example – and then it makes the best determination for not only the disposition for that patient but antibiotic treatment as well,” he said in an interview.

This then allows physicians to either appropriately discharge less severely ill patients and admit those who are more ill – “and in general, just do a better job of treating pneumonia with this tool,” Dr. Balls said. He himself uses the decision support tool when attending to his own patients with pneumonia, as he feels that the tool really does make his care of these patients better. “There is a disparity around how we treat pneumonia in the U.S.

“Clinicians sometimes have a bias or a preference for certain antibiotics and we may not be appropriately treating these patients with broad-spectrum antibiotics or are perhaps using antibiotics that are not as effective based on an individual patient scenario so this is definitely a user-friendly tool that hopefully can be deployed throughout other health care systems to improve the treatment of pneumonia overall,” Dr. Balls emphasized.

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

The use of an electronic clinical decision support tool called “ePNa” reduced severity-adjusted, 30-day, all-cause mortality by 38% across 16 community hospitals in Utah, compared with predeployment levels, a 3-year, pragmatic, cluster-controlled study shows.

“We designed the ePNa specifically to require minimal input from the clinician so everything it does is already in the electronic medical record,” Nathan Dean, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“So it’s actually putting the guideline recommendations into effect for physicians so that they can make better decisions by having all this information – it’s a comprehensive best practice kind of tool where best practices are likely to make the biggest difference for patients with a high severity of illness,” he added.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.


 

Guideline-based tool

The ePNa makes use of pneumonia guidelines of 2007 and 2019 from the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America. The system was deployed into six geographic clusters of 16 Intermountain hospital EDs at 2-month intervals between December 2017 and November 2018. Simultaneous deployment was impractical, as implementation of the tool takes education, monitoring, and feedback that can be facilitated by focusing on only a few hospitals at a time.

The decision support tool gathers key patient indicators including age, fever, oxygen saturation, vital signs, and laboratory and chest imaging results to offer recommendations on care, including appropriate antibiotic therapy, microbiology studies, and whether a given patient should be sent to the intensive care unit, admitted to hospital, or may safely be discharged home.

Investigators analyzed a total of 6,848 patients, of whom 4,536 were managed for pneumonia before the ePNa was deployed and 2,312 after deployment.

The median age of patients was 67 years (interquartile range, 50-79 years). Roughly half were female and almost all were White. “Observed 30-day all-cause mortality including both outpatients and inpatients was 8.6% before deployment versus 4.8% after deployment of ePNa,” Dr. Dean and colleagues reported.

Adjusted for severity of illness, the odds ratio for lower mortality post-ePNa launch was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.79; P < .0010) “and lower morality was consistent across hospital clusters.”

Compared with patients who were discharged home, reductions in mortality were greatest in patients who were directly admitted to ICUs from the ED (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.77; P = .01). The OR for patients admitted to the medical floor was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.1; P = .09), which did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Dean explained that the reductions in mortality were seen among those with the most severe illness, in whom best practices would benefit the most. In contrast, patients who are sent home on an antibiotic are at low risk for mortality while patients admitted to the medical floor may well have another, more lethal illness from which they end up dying, rather than simple pneumonia.

“For me, this was a clear demonstration that these best practices made the biggest difference in patients who were sick and who did not have any underlying disease that was going to kill them anyway,” he emphasized. On the other hand, both 30-day mortality and 7-day secondary hospital admission were higher among patients the tool recommended for hospital ward admission but who were discharged home from the ED.

“This was an unexpected finding,” Dr. Dean observed. However, as he explained, the authors reviewed 25% of randomly selected patients who fell into this subgroup and discovered that the ePNa tool was used in only about 20% of patients – “so doctors did not use the tool in the majority of this group.”

In addition, some of these patients declined hospital admission, so the doctors may have recommended that they be admitted but the patients said no. “The hypothesis here is that if they had been admitted to the hospital, they may have had a lower mortality risk,” Dr. Dean said.
 

Noticeable changes

Another noticeable change following the introduction of the ePNa tool was that guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing increased in the 8 hours after patients presented to the ED, from 79.5% prior to the tool’s launch to 87.9%, again after adjusting for pneumonia severity (P < .001). Use of broad-spectrum antibiotics was not significantly different between the two treatment intervals, but administration of antibiotics active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus dropped significantly between the two treatment intervals (P < .001). And the mean time from admission to the ED to the first antibiotic taken was slightly faster, improving from 159.4 minutes (95% CI, 156.9-161.9 minutes) prior to the ePNa launch to 150.9 minutes (95% CI, 144.1-157.8) post deployment (P < .001).

“Overall outpatient disposition for treatment of pneumonia from the emergency department increased from 29.2% before ePNa to 46.9% [post ePNA],” the authors noted, while a similar increase was observed in patients for whom ePNA recommended outpatient care – from 49.2% pre-ePNA to 66.6% after ePNA.

Both hospital ward admission and admission to the ICU decreased after ePNa had been introduced. Despite a significant increase in the percentage of patients being discharged home, neither 7-day secondary hospital admission nor severity-adjusted, 30-day mortality were significantly different before versus after the introduction of ePNa, the authors stressed.

A limitation of the study was that the trial was confined to a single health care system in one region of the United States with a patient population that may differ from that in other regions.
 

Reason for its success

Asked to comment on the findings, Adam Balls, MD, emergency department chair, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, suggested that the reason the ePNa tool has been so successful at improving care for pneumonia patients is that it puts the guidelines directly into the hands of individual providers and tells them what’s going on. (Dr. Balls was not involved in the study.) “The tool allows us to take into consideration various clinical features – a patient’s oxygen requirements and whether or not they had prior complicated pneumonias that required additional antibiotics, for example – and then it makes the best determination for not only the disposition for that patient but antibiotic treatment as well,” he said in an interview.

This then allows physicians to either appropriately discharge less severely ill patients and admit those who are more ill – “and in general, just do a better job of treating pneumonia with this tool,” Dr. Balls said. He himself uses the decision support tool when attending to his own patients with pneumonia, as he feels that the tool really does make his care of these patients better. “There is a disparity around how we treat pneumonia in the U.S.

“Clinicians sometimes have a bias or a preference for certain antibiotics and we may not be appropriately treating these patients with broad-spectrum antibiotics or are perhaps using antibiotics that are not as effective based on an individual patient scenario so this is definitely a user-friendly tool that hopefully can be deployed throughout other health care systems to improve the treatment of pneumonia overall,” Dr. Balls emphasized.

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

The use of an electronic clinical decision support tool called “ePNa” reduced severity-adjusted, 30-day, all-cause mortality by 38% across 16 community hospitals in Utah, compared with predeployment levels, a 3-year, pragmatic, cluster-controlled study shows.

“We designed the ePNa specifically to require minimal input from the clinician so everything it does is already in the electronic medical record,” Nathan Dean, MD, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“So it’s actually putting the guideline recommendations into effect for physicians so that they can make better decisions by having all this information – it’s a comprehensive best practice kind of tool where best practices are likely to make the biggest difference for patients with a high severity of illness,” he added.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.


 

Guideline-based tool

The ePNa makes use of pneumonia guidelines of 2007 and 2019 from the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America. The system was deployed into six geographic clusters of 16 Intermountain hospital EDs at 2-month intervals between December 2017 and November 2018. Simultaneous deployment was impractical, as implementation of the tool takes education, monitoring, and feedback that can be facilitated by focusing on only a few hospitals at a time.

The decision support tool gathers key patient indicators including age, fever, oxygen saturation, vital signs, and laboratory and chest imaging results to offer recommendations on care, including appropriate antibiotic therapy, microbiology studies, and whether a given patient should be sent to the intensive care unit, admitted to hospital, or may safely be discharged home.

Investigators analyzed a total of 6,848 patients, of whom 4,536 were managed for pneumonia before the ePNa was deployed and 2,312 after deployment.

The median age of patients was 67 years (interquartile range, 50-79 years). Roughly half were female and almost all were White. “Observed 30-day all-cause mortality including both outpatients and inpatients was 8.6% before deployment versus 4.8% after deployment of ePNa,” Dr. Dean and colleagues reported.

Adjusted for severity of illness, the odds ratio for lower mortality post-ePNa launch was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.79; P < .0010) “and lower morality was consistent across hospital clusters.”

Compared with patients who were discharged home, reductions in mortality were greatest in patients who were directly admitted to ICUs from the ED (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.77; P = .01). The OR for patients admitted to the medical floor was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.1; P = .09), which did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Dean explained that the reductions in mortality were seen among those with the most severe illness, in whom best practices would benefit the most. In contrast, patients who are sent home on an antibiotic are at low risk for mortality while patients admitted to the medical floor may well have another, more lethal illness from which they end up dying, rather than simple pneumonia.

“For me, this was a clear demonstration that these best practices made the biggest difference in patients who were sick and who did not have any underlying disease that was going to kill them anyway,” he emphasized. On the other hand, both 30-day mortality and 7-day secondary hospital admission were higher among patients the tool recommended for hospital ward admission but who were discharged home from the ED.

“This was an unexpected finding,” Dr. Dean observed. However, as he explained, the authors reviewed 25% of randomly selected patients who fell into this subgroup and discovered that the ePNa tool was used in only about 20% of patients – “so doctors did not use the tool in the majority of this group.”

In addition, some of these patients declined hospital admission, so the doctors may have recommended that they be admitted but the patients said no. “The hypothesis here is that if they had been admitted to the hospital, they may have had a lower mortality risk,” Dr. Dean said.
 

Noticeable changes

Another noticeable change following the introduction of the ePNa tool was that guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing increased in the 8 hours after patients presented to the ED, from 79.5% prior to the tool’s launch to 87.9%, again after adjusting for pneumonia severity (P < .001). Use of broad-spectrum antibiotics was not significantly different between the two treatment intervals, but administration of antibiotics active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus dropped significantly between the two treatment intervals (P < .001). And the mean time from admission to the ED to the first antibiotic taken was slightly faster, improving from 159.4 minutes (95% CI, 156.9-161.9 minutes) prior to the ePNa launch to 150.9 minutes (95% CI, 144.1-157.8) post deployment (P < .001).

“Overall outpatient disposition for treatment of pneumonia from the emergency department increased from 29.2% before ePNa to 46.9% [post ePNA],” the authors noted, while a similar increase was observed in patients for whom ePNA recommended outpatient care – from 49.2% pre-ePNA to 66.6% after ePNA.

Both hospital ward admission and admission to the ICU decreased after ePNa had been introduced. Despite a significant increase in the percentage of patients being discharged home, neither 7-day secondary hospital admission nor severity-adjusted, 30-day mortality were significantly different before versus after the introduction of ePNa, the authors stressed.

A limitation of the study was that the trial was confined to a single health care system in one region of the United States with a patient population that may differ from that in other regions.
 

Reason for its success

Asked to comment on the findings, Adam Balls, MD, emergency department chair, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, suggested that the reason the ePNa tool has been so successful at improving care for pneumonia patients is that it puts the guidelines directly into the hands of individual providers and tells them what’s going on. (Dr. Balls was not involved in the study.) “The tool allows us to take into consideration various clinical features – a patient’s oxygen requirements and whether or not they had prior complicated pneumonias that required additional antibiotics, for example – and then it makes the best determination for not only the disposition for that patient but antibiotic treatment as well,” he said in an interview.

This then allows physicians to either appropriately discharge less severely ill patients and admit those who are more ill – “and in general, just do a better job of treating pneumonia with this tool,” Dr. Balls said. He himself uses the decision support tool when attending to his own patients with pneumonia, as he feels that the tool really does make his care of these patients better. “There is a disparity around how we treat pneumonia in the U.S.

“Clinicians sometimes have a bias or a preference for certain antibiotics and we may not be appropriately treating these patients with broad-spectrum antibiotics or are perhaps using antibiotics that are not as effective based on an individual patient scenario so this is definitely a user-friendly tool that hopefully can be deployed throughout other health care systems to improve the treatment of pneumonia overall,” Dr. Balls emphasized.

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