MDedge Surgery

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

Surgeons may significantly underestimate how long it will take women to return to normal activities following sling surgery to correct stress urinary incontinence, a new study has found.

The researchers found that just over 40% of women reported returning to work and other normal activities within 2 weeks of having undergone midurethral sling procedures – a much less optimistic forecast than what surgeons typically provide in these cases.

“This is in contrast to a published survey of physicians that showed the majority of surgeons suggested patients return to work within 2 weeks,” Rui Wang, MD, a fellow in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Hartford Hospital, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Wang referred to a published survey of 135 physicians that was conducted at a 2018 meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. In that survey, 88% of respondents indicated that patients could return to sedentary work within 2 weeks after undergoing sling surgery. Most recommended longer waits before returning to manual labor.

The authors of the survey noted a lack of consensus guidelines and wide variations in recommendations for postoperative restrictions after minimally invasive gynecologic and pelvic reconstructive surgery, which the researchers called a “largely unstudied field.”

Dr. Wang said, “The majority of patients may need more than 2 weeks to return to work and normal activities even following minimally invasive outpatient surgeries such as midurethral sling.”

Dr. Wang is scheduled to present the findings June 18 at the annual meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society.

For the new study, Dr. Wang and a colleague examined how patients answered questions about their activity levels during recovery after sling procedures. The patients were enrolled in the Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings (TOMUS), a randomized controlled trial that compared two types of midurethral slings used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: the retropubic midurethral mesh sling and the transobturator midurethral sling. Results of the trial were published in 2010.

Of 597 women enrolled in TOMUS, 441 were included in the new analysis. Patients who underwent another surgery at the same time as their sling procedure were excluded from the analysis.

As part of the trial, patients were asked how many paid workdays they took off after surgery; whether they had returned to full normal activities of daily life, including work, if applicable; and how much time it took for them to fully return to normal activities of daily life, including work.

The researchers found that 183 (41.5%) returned to normal activities within 2 weeks of the procedure. Among those patients, the median recovery time was 6 days. Within 6 weeks of surgery, 308 (70%) had returned to normal activities, including work. After 6 months, 407 (98.3%) were back to their normal routines, the study showed.

Multivariate regression analysis yielded no factor that predicted the timing of returning to normal activity and work. Nor did the researchers observe any significant differences in failure rates and adverse outcomes between patients who returned within 2 weeks or after 2 weeks.
 

Essential information for patient planning

Dr. Wang said she expects that the findings will help physicians in counseling patients and setting postoperative recovery expectations. “For patients planning elective surgery, one of the most important quality-of-life issues is the time they will need to take off from work and recover,” she said.

Although most patients needed more than 2 weeks to recover, the median paid time off after surgery was 4 days. “Many patients would have taken unpaid days off or used vacation time for their postoperative recovery,” Dr. Wang said.

She added that more research is needed to explore whether that discrepancy disproportionately affects women in jobs with fewer employee benefits. “We did not find that age, race/ethnicity, marital status, occupation, symptom severity, and duration of surgery significantly predicted the timing of return to work or normal activities,” she said. “But are there other factors, such as geographic location, insurance status, [or] income, that may affect this timing?”

Sarah Boyd, MD, an assistant professor in the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, said the new findings add concrete information that can guide patients in planning their recovery.

“Previously, surgeons could only provide general estimates to these patients based on the experience of their patients,” Dr. Boyd, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

The analysis has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and Dr. Boyd said that the findings may not pertain to all individuals who undergo midurethral sling procedures, such as people who have had prior surgery for incontinence or those who undergo surgery for other pelvic floor disorders at the same time.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Boyd reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Surgeons may significantly underestimate how long it will take women to return to normal activities following sling surgery to correct stress urinary incontinence, a new study has found.

The researchers found that just over 40% of women reported returning to work and other normal activities within 2 weeks of having undergone midurethral sling procedures – a much less optimistic forecast than what surgeons typically provide in these cases.

“This is in contrast to a published survey of physicians that showed the majority of surgeons suggested patients return to work within 2 weeks,” Rui Wang, MD, a fellow in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Hartford Hospital, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Wang referred to a published survey of 135 physicians that was conducted at a 2018 meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. In that survey, 88% of respondents indicated that patients could return to sedentary work within 2 weeks after undergoing sling surgery. Most recommended longer waits before returning to manual labor.

The authors of the survey noted a lack of consensus guidelines and wide variations in recommendations for postoperative restrictions after minimally invasive gynecologic and pelvic reconstructive surgery, which the researchers called a “largely unstudied field.”

Dr. Wang said, “The majority of patients may need more than 2 weeks to return to work and normal activities even following minimally invasive outpatient surgeries such as midurethral sling.”

Dr. Wang is scheduled to present the findings June 18 at the annual meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society.

For the new study, Dr. Wang and a colleague examined how patients answered questions about their activity levels during recovery after sling procedures. The patients were enrolled in the Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings (TOMUS), a randomized controlled trial that compared two types of midurethral slings used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: the retropubic midurethral mesh sling and the transobturator midurethral sling. Results of the trial were published in 2010.

Of 597 women enrolled in TOMUS, 441 were included in the new analysis. Patients who underwent another surgery at the same time as their sling procedure were excluded from the analysis.

As part of the trial, patients were asked how many paid workdays they took off after surgery; whether they had returned to full normal activities of daily life, including work, if applicable; and how much time it took for them to fully return to normal activities of daily life, including work.

The researchers found that 183 (41.5%) returned to normal activities within 2 weeks of the procedure. Among those patients, the median recovery time was 6 days. Within 6 weeks of surgery, 308 (70%) had returned to normal activities, including work. After 6 months, 407 (98.3%) were back to their normal routines, the study showed.

Multivariate regression analysis yielded no factor that predicted the timing of returning to normal activity and work. Nor did the researchers observe any significant differences in failure rates and adverse outcomes between patients who returned within 2 weeks or after 2 weeks.
 

Essential information for patient planning

Dr. Wang said she expects that the findings will help physicians in counseling patients and setting postoperative recovery expectations. “For patients planning elective surgery, one of the most important quality-of-life issues is the time they will need to take off from work and recover,” she said.

Although most patients needed more than 2 weeks to recover, the median paid time off after surgery was 4 days. “Many patients would have taken unpaid days off or used vacation time for their postoperative recovery,” Dr. Wang said.

She added that more research is needed to explore whether that discrepancy disproportionately affects women in jobs with fewer employee benefits. “We did not find that age, race/ethnicity, marital status, occupation, symptom severity, and duration of surgery significantly predicted the timing of return to work or normal activities,” she said. “But are there other factors, such as geographic location, insurance status, [or] income, that may affect this timing?”

Sarah Boyd, MD, an assistant professor in the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, said the new findings add concrete information that can guide patients in planning their recovery.

“Previously, surgeons could only provide general estimates to these patients based on the experience of their patients,” Dr. Boyd, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

The analysis has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and Dr. Boyd said that the findings may not pertain to all individuals who undergo midurethral sling procedures, such as people who have had prior surgery for incontinence or those who undergo surgery for other pelvic floor disorders at the same time.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Boyd reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Surgeons may significantly underestimate how long it will take women to return to normal activities following sling surgery to correct stress urinary incontinence, a new study has found.

The researchers found that just over 40% of women reported returning to work and other normal activities within 2 weeks of having undergone midurethral sling procedures – a much less optimistic forecast than what surgeons typically provide in these cases.

“This is in contrast to a published survey of physicians that showed the majority of surgeons suggested patients return to work within 2 weeks,” Rui Wang, MD, a fellow in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Hartford Hospital, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Wang referred to a published survey of 135 physicians that was conducted at a 2018 meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. In that survey, 88% of respondents indicated that patients could return to sedentary work within 2 weeks after undergoing sling surgery. Most recommended longer waits before returning to manual labor.

The authors of the survey noted a lack of consensus guidelines and wide variations in recommendations for postoperative restrictions after minimally invasive gynecologic and pelvic reconstructive surgery, which the researchers called a “largely unstudied field.”

Dr. Wang said, “The majority of patients may need more than 2 weeks to return to work and normal activities even following minimally invasive outpatient surgeries such as midurethral sling.”

Dr. Wang is scheduled to present the findings June 18 at the annual meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society.

For the new study, Dr. Wang and a colleague examined how patients answered questions about their activity levels during recovery after sling procedures. The patients were enrolled in the Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings (TOMUS), a randomized controlled trial that compared two types of midurethral slings used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: the retropubic midurethral mesh sling and the transobturator midurethral sling. Results of the trial were published in 2010.

Of 597 women enrolled in TOMUS, 441 were included in the new analysis. Patients who underwent another surgery at the same time as their sling procedure were excluded from the analysis.

As part of the trial, patients were asked how many paid workdays they took off after surgery; whether they had returned to full normal activities of daily life, including work, if applicable; and how much time it took for them to fully return to normal activities of daily life, including work.

The researchers found that 183 (41.5%) returned to normal activities within 2 weeks of the procedure. Among those patients, the median recovery time was 6 days. Within 6 weeks of surgery, 308 (70%) had returned to normal activities, including work. After 6 months, 407 (98.3%) were back to their normal routines, the study showed.

Multivariate regression analysis yielded no factor that predicted the timing of returning to normal activity and work. Nor did the researchers observe any significant differences in failure rates and adverse outcomes between patients who returned within 2 weeks or after 2 weeks.
 

Essential information for patient planning

Dr. Wang said she expects that the findings will help physicians in counseling patients and setting postoperative recovery expectations. “For patients planning elective surgery, one of the most important quality-of-life issues is the time they will need to take off from work and recover,” she said.

Although most patients needed more than 2 weeks to recover, the median paid time off after surgery was 4 days. “Many patients would have taken unpaid days off or used vacation time for their postoperative recovery,” Dr. Wang said.

She added that more research is needed to explore whether that discrepancy disproportionately affects women in jobs with fewer employee benefits. “We did not find that age, race/ethnicity, marital status, occupation, symptom severity, and duration of surgery significantly predicted the timing of return to work or normal activities,” she said. “But are there other factors, such as geographic location, insurance status, [or] income, that may affect this timing?”

Sarah Boyd, MD, an assistant professor in the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, said the new findings add concrete information that can guide patients in planning their recovery.

“Previously, surgeons could only provide general estimates to these patients based on the experience of their patients,” Dr. Boyd, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

The analysis has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and Dr. Boyd said that the findings may not pertain to all individuals who undergo midurethral sling procedures, such as people who have had prior surgery for incontinence or those who undergo surgery for other pelvic floor disorders at the same time.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Boyd reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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