In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: A Mendelian randomization analysis revealed that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a significant risk factor for ulcerative colitis (UC) and vice versa.

Major finding: UC was associated with a 45.8% increased risk for PsA (odds ratio [OR] 1.458; P = .0013); conversely, PsA was associated with a 32.9% increased risk for UC (OR 1.329; P < .001).

Study details: This Mendelian randomization study evaluated the causal association between PsA, UC, and psoriasis using 123 single nucleotide polymorphisms from genome-wide association studies as genetic instrumental variables.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pan J, Lv Y, Wang L, et al. Mendelian randomization analysis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis associated with risks of ulcerative colitis. Skin Res Technol. 2024;30:e13795 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

Key clinical point: A Mendelian randomization analysis revealed that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a significant risk factor for ulcerative colitis (UC) and vice versa.

Major finding: UC was associated with a 45.8% increased risk for PsA (odds ratio [OR] 1.458; P = .0013); conversely, PsA was associated with a 32.9% increased risk for UC (OR 1.329; P < .001).

Study details: This Mendelian randomization study evaluated the causal association between PsA, UC, and psoriasis using 123 single nucleotide polymorphisms from genome-wide association studies as genetic instrumental variables.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pan J, Lv Y, Wang L, et al. Mendelian randomization analysis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis associated with risks of ulcerative colitis. Skin Res Technol. 2024;30:e13795 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

Key clinical point: A Mendelian randomization analysis revealed that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was a significant risk factor for ulcerative colitis (UC) and vice versa.

Major finding: UC was associated with a 45.8% increased risk for PsA (odds ratio [OR] 1.458; P = .0013); conversely, PsA was associated with a 32.9% increased risk for UC (OR 1.329; P < .001).

Study details: This Mendelian randomization study evaluated the causal association between PsA, UC, and psoriasis using 123 single nucleotide polymorphisms from genome-wide association studies as genetic instrumental variables.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Pan J, Lv Y, Wang L, et al. Mendelian randomization analysis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis associated with risks of ulcerative colitis. Skin Res Technol. 2024;30:e13795 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

Key clinical point: Ultrasound detected active enthesitis and synovitis in a non-negligible proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved remission or low disease activity with biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD).

Major finding: Despite achieving the Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) treatment target, 21.6% patients had at least one painful enthesis on clinical examination. Ultrasound showed evidence of active enthesitis in 19.6% and active synovitis in 15.7% patients.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 51 patients with PsA who met the DAPSA treatment target after at least 6 months of therapy with b/tsDMARD and underwent bilateral ultrasound and clinical examination of entheses and joints.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Source: Agache M, Popescu CC, Enache L, et al. Additional value of ultrasound in patients with psoriatic arthritis within treatment target. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):4567 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

Key clinical point: Ultrasound detected active enthesitis and synovitis in a non-negligible proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved remission or low disease activity with biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD).

Major finding: Despite achieving the Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) treatment target, 21.6% patients had at least one painful enthesis on clinical examination. Ultrasound showed evidence of active enthesitis in 19.6% and active synovitis in 15.7% patients.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 51 patients with PsA who met the DAPSA treatment target after at least 6 months of therapy with b/tsDMARD and underwent bilateral ultrasound and clinical examination of entheses and joints.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Source: Agache M, Popescu CC, Enache L, et al. Additional value of ultrasound in patients with psoriatic arthritis within treatment target. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):4567 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

Key clinical point: Ultrasound detected active enthesitis and synovitis in a non-negligible proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved remission or low disease activity with biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD).

Major finding: Despite achieving the Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) treatment target, 21.6% patients had at least one painful enthesis on clinical examination. Ultrasound showed evidence of active enthesitis in 19.6% and active synovitis in 15.7% patients.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 51 patients with PsA who met the DAPSA treatment target after at least 6 months of therapy with b/tsDMARD and underwent bilateral ultrasound and clinical examination of entheses and joints.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Source: Agache M, Popescu CC, Enache L, et al. Additional value of ultrasound in patients with psoriatic arthritis within treatment target. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):4567 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3390/jcm13154567 Source

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Exercise and a Mediterranean diet improved disease activity outcomes pertaining to skin and joints in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), indicating that combining lifestyle changes with conventional medical treatment can benefit patients with PsA.

Major finding: High vs low levels of exercise were associated with lower median values of Disease Activity in PsA Score (10.6 vs 28.5; P = .004), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (9 vs 16; P = .001), and fewer tender (1.5 vs 10; P = .003) and swollen (1.5 vs 9; P = .016) joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (0.9 vs 1.5; P = .001) and body surface area (1 vs 2; P = .009).

Study details: This cross-sectional study enrolled 355 patients with psoriatic disease (age > 18 years), including 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis.

Disclosures: No funding sources were declared for this study. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Katsimbri P, Grivas A, Papadavid E, et al. Mediterranean diet and exercise are associated with better disease control in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-07080-6 Source

Key clinical point: Exercise and a Mediterranean diet improved disease activity outcomes pertaining to skin and joints in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), indicating that combining lifestyle changes with conventional medical treatment can benefit patients with PsA.

Major finding: High vs low levels of exercise were associated with lower median values of Disease Activity in PsA Score (10.6 vs 28.5; P = .004), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (9 vs 16; P = .001), and fewer tender (1.5 vs 10; P = .003) and swollen (1.5 vs 9; P = .016) joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (0.9 vs 1.5; P = .001) and body surface area (1 vs 2; P = .009).

Study details: This cross-sectional study enrolled 355 patients with psoriatic disease (age > 18 years), including 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis.

Disclosures: No funding sources were declared for this study. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Katsimbri P, Grivas A, Papadavid E, et al. Mediterranean diet and exercise are associated with better disease control in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-07080-6 Source

Key clinical point: Exercise and a Mediterranean diet improved disease activity outcomes pertaining to skin and joints in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), indicating that combining lifestyle changes with conventional medical treatment can benefit patients with PsA.

Major finding: High vs low levels of exercise were associated with lower median values of Disease Activity in PsA Score (10.6 vs 28.5; P = .004), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (9 vs 16; P = .001), and fewer tender (1.5 vs 10; P = .003) and swollen (1.5 vs 9; P = .016) joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (0.9 vs 1.5; P = .001) and body surface area (1 vs 2; P = .009).

Study details: This cross-sectional study enrolled 355 patients with psoriatic disease (age > 18 years), including 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis.

Disclosures: No funding sources were declared for this study. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Katsimbri P, Grivas A, Papadavid E, et al. Mediterranean diet and exercise are associated with better disease control in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-024-07080-6 Source

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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