User login
Gloom lifting as MCL treatments evolve
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.
COVID lawsuits have arrived: Which doctors are at risk?
A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.
The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.
The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.
“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”
In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.
Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.
In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.
Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.
Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.
“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
Which specialties are involved in legal actions?
Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.
In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.
The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.
Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.
At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.
The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.
Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.
Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.
“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?
A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.
In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.
At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.
Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.
Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.
“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”
The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.
But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.
“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
What does the future hold for COVID claims?
Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.
“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”
Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.
“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.
The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.
The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.
“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”
In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.
Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.
In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.
Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.
Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.
“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
Which specialties are involved in legal actions?
Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.
In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.
The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.
Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.
At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.
The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.
Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.
Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.
“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?
A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.
In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.
At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.
Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.
Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.
“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”
The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.
But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.
“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
What does the future hold for COVID claims?
Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.
“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”
Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.
“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.
The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.
The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.
“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”
In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.
Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.
In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.
Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.
Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.
“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
Which specialties are involved in legal actions?
Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.
In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.
The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.
Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.
At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.
The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.
Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.
Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.
“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?
A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.
In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.
At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.
Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.
Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.
“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”
The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.
But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.
“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
What does the future hold for COVID claims?
Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.
“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”
Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.
“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Risk score refines TIA management for PCPs, emergency docs
The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.
“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.
“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”
Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”
The study was published in CMAJ.
Score stratifies risk
Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.
Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:
- Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
- Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
- Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
- Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.
“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
Caveats and concerns
Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.
While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”
Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.
“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”
In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”
Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.
While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.
“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”
In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.
The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.
“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.
“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”
Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”
The study was published in CMAJ.
Score stratifies risk
Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.
Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:
- Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
- Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
- Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
- Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.
“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
Caveats and concerns
Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.
While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”
Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.
“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”
In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”
Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.
While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.
“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”
In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.
The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.
“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.
“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”
Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”
The study was published in CMAJ.
Score stratifies risk
Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.
Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:
- Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
- Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
- Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
- Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.
“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
Caveats and concerns
Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.
While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”
Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.
“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”
In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”
Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.
While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.
“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”
In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.
The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CMAJ
‘Amazing’ phase 3 results for novel schizophrenia combo drug
VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.
Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.
Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.
Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”
Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”
The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
Novel compound
Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.
A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.
Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”
He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”
M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.
That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.
While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.
The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
Intermittent, time limited TEAEs
The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.
All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.
Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.
At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).
The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.
Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).
Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).
TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.
The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).
The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.
Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.
He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
‘Really revolutionary’
Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.
Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.
“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.
Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”
Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.
Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”
Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.
He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”
Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”
“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”
Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.
Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.
Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.
Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”
Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”
The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
Novel compound
Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.
A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.
Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”
He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”
M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.
That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.
While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.
The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
Intermittent, time limited TEAEs
The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.
All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.
Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.
At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).
The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.
Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).
Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).
TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.
The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).
The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.
Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.
He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
‘Really revolutionary’
Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.
Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.
“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.
Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”
Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.
Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”
Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.
He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”
Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”
“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”
Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.
Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.
Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.
Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”
Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”
The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
Novel compound
Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.
A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.
Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”
He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”
M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.
That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.
While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.
The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
Intermittent, time limited TEAEs
The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.
All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.
Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.
At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).
The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.
Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).
Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).
TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.
The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).
The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.
Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.
He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
‘Really revolutionary’
Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.
Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.
“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.
Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”
Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.
Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”
Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.
He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”
Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”
“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”
Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2022
Docs used permanent, not temporary stitches; lawsuits result
The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.
The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) D As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.
In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.
On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.
Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.
Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.
The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) D As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.
In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.
On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.
Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.
Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.
The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) D As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.
In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.
On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.
Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.
Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In epilepsy, heart issues linked to longer disease duration
, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.
The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications
Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.
She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.
The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.
“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Implications for clinical practice
During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.
Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.
The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).
Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.
, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.
The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications
Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.
She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.
The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.
“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Implications for clinical practice
During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.
Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.
The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).
Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.
, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.
The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications
Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.
She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.
The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.
“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.
Implications for clinical practice
During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.
Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.
The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).
Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM CNS 2022
Jury decides against hospital and surgeon who died by suicide
, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.
In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.
Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.
But here the story takes a grim turn.
Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.
The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.
Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.
“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”
But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.
In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.
Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.
But here the story takes a grim turn.
Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.
The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.
Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.
“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”
But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.
In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.
Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.
But here the story takes a grim turn.
Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.
The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.
Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.
“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”
But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines 2022: Management and treatment
In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment.
According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.
These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.
The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.
In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.
In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.
It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.
Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD
Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.
The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.
Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.
An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.
In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O2 saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.
Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.
COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment.
According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.
These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.
The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.
In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.
In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.
It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.
Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD
Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.
The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.
Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.
An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.
In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O2 saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.
Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.
COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment.
According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.
These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.
The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.
In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.
In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.
It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.
Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD
Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.
The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.
Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.
An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.
In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O2 saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.
Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.
COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
Hair straighteners’ risk too small for docs to advise against their use
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.
A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.
“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.
In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.
This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.
“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.
While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.
Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.
One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.
Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”
The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.
Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”
She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.
“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
Not ready to go curly
Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.
“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.
Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.
She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.
“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.
Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.
“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”
In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”
The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.
The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.
“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
AGA President Dr. John Carethers named vice chancellor at UCSD
Everyone at AGA sends our congratulations to AGA President John Carethers, MD, AGAF, on his appointment as the vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California San Diego.
Dr. Carethers, who began his term as the 117th president of the AGA Institute on June 1, 2022, is returning to UC San Diego after a 13-year tenure at the University of Michigan. He will report directly to the chancellor and serve as a part of the leadership team, effective Jan. 1, 2023.
Aside from his new role at UCSD, Dr. Carethers has been an active member of AGA for more than 20 years and has served on several AGA committees, including the AGA Nominating Committee, AGA Underrepresented Minorities Committee, AGA Research Policy Committee, AGA Institute Council and the AGA Trainee & Young GI Committee.
We wish him well in this new chapter!
Everyone at AGA sends our congratulations to AGA President John Carethers, MD, AGAF, on his appointment as the vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California San Diego.
Dr. Carethers, who began his term as the 117th president of the AGA Institute on June 1, 2022, is returning to UC San Diego after a 13-year tenure at the University of Michigan. He will report directly to the chancellor and serve as a part of the leadership team, effective Jan. 1, 2023.
Aside from his new role at UCSD, Dr. Carethers has been an active member of AGA for more than 20 years and has served on several AGA committees, including the AGA Nominating Committee, AGA Underrepresented Minorities Committee, AGA Research Policy Committee, AGA Institute Council and the AGA Trainee & Young GI Committee.
We wish him well in this new chapter!
Everyone at AGA sends our congratulations to AGA President John Carethers, MD, AGAF, on his appointment as the vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California San Diego.
Dr. Carethers, who began his term as the 117th president of the AGA Institute on June 1, 2022, is returning to UC San Diego after a 13-year tenure at the University of Michigan. He will report directly to the chancellor and serve as a part of the leadership team, effective Jan. 1, 2023.
Aside from his new role at UCSD, Dr. Carethers has been an active member of AGA for more than 20 years and has served on several AGA committees, including the AGA Nominating Committee, AGA Underrepresented Minorities Committee, AGA Research Policy Committee, AGA Institute Council and the AGA Trainee & Young GI Committee.
We wish him well in this new chapter!