A commonly held belief that classic psychedelic therapy can trigger suicidal thoughts, actions, or other types of self-harm is not supported by research, and, in fact, the opposite may be true.

Results from a meta-analysis of individual patient data showed that psychedelic therapy was associated with large, acute, and sustained decreases in suicidality across a range of clinical patient populations.

“This is the first analysis to synthesize suicidality outcome data from recent clinical trials with psychedelics. It gives us a better understanding of the effects of psychedelics on suicidality in the context of clinical trials,” study investigator Cory Weissman, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

The evidence suggests psychedelic therapy “may reduce suicidal ideation when administered in the appropriate setting and offered to carefully screened patients,” Dr. Weissman said.

The findings were published online Jan. 18 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

More research needed

The analysis included seven psychedelic therapy clinical trials that had data on suicidality. Five of the trials used psilocybin plus psychotherapy and two used ayahuasca plus psychotherapy. All seven trials had a “low” risk of bias.

Patients included in the trials had treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), recurrent MDD, AIDS-related demoralization, and distress related to life-threatening cancer.

The meta-analytic results showed significant decreases in suicidality at all acute time points (80 to 240 minutes post administration) and at most post-acute time points (1 day to 4 months post administration).

Effect sizes for reductions in suicidality were “large” at all acute time points, with standardized mean differences (SMD) ranging from -1.48 to -1.72, and remained large from 1 day to 3-4 months after therapy (SMD range, -1.50 to -2.36).

At 6 months, the effect size for reductions in suicidality with psychedelic therapy was “medium” (SMD, -0.65).

Large effect sizes for reductions in suicidality occurred across the different patient populations represented in the trial, the investigators note.

No study reported any suicide-related adverse events because of administration of a psychedelic. There were also “very few” acute (6.5%) or postacute (3.0%) elevations in suicidality, “providing support for the safety of psychedelic therapy within controlled contexts,” the researchers write.

They caution, however, that large controlled trials that specifically evaluate the effect of psychedelic therapy on suicidality are needed.
 

Promising avenue

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel Grossman, BS, and Peter Hendricks, PhD, department of health behavior, University of Alabama at Birmingham, note that results of this review warrant “optimism” for use of psychedelics for treatment of suicidality.

Based on this study and others, classic psychedelic therapy for suicidality appears to be a “promising avenue” for further investigation, they write.

However, research and anecdotes about increased suicidality and other self-harm attributed to psychedelic therapy, “though evidently rare, remain a critical concern” for further research to address, Dr. Grossman and Dr. Hendricks add.

The hope is that future research “clarifies who is most subject to these risks, what factors best identify them, and how best to navigate their treatment safely,” they write.

The meta-analysis had no funding. Dr. Weissman receives funding from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and serves on the advisory board of GoodCap Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hendricks is on the scientific advisory board of Bright Minds Biosciences, Eleusis Benefit Corporation, and Rest Pharmaceuticals.

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

A commonly held belief that classic psychedelic therapy can trigger suicidal thoughts, actions, or other types of self-harm is not supported by research, and, in fact, the opposite may be true.

Results from a meta-analysis of individual patient data showed that psychedelic therapy was associated with large, acute, and sustained decreases in suicidality across a range of clinical patient populations.

“This is the first analysis to synthesize suicidality outcome data from recent clinical trials with psychedelics. It gives us a better understanding of the effects of psychedelics on suicidality in the context of clinical trials,” study investigator Cory Weissman, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

The evidence suggests psychedelic therapy “may reduce suicidal ideation when administered in the appropriate setting and offered to carefully screened patients,” Dr. Weissman said.

The findings were published online Jan. 18 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

More research needed

The analysis included seven psychedelic therapy clinical trials that had data on suicidality. Five of the trials used psilocybin plus psychotherapy and two used ayahuasca plus psychotherapy. All seven trials had a “low” risk of bias.

Patients included in the trials had treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), recurrent MDD, AIDS-related demoralization, and distress related to life-threatening cancer.

The meta-analytic results showed significant decreases in suicidality at all acute time points (80 to 240 minutes post administration) and at most post-acute time points (1 day to 4 months post administration).

Effect sizes for reductions in suicidality were “large” at all acute time points, with standardized mean differences (SMD) ranging from -1.48 to -1.72, and remained large from 1 day to 3-4 months after therapy (SMD range, -1.50 to -2.36).

At 6 months, the effect size for reductions in suicidality with psychedelic therapy was “medium” (SMD, -0.65).

Large effect sizes for reductions in suicidality occurred across the different patient populations represented in the trial, the investigators note.

No study reported any suicide-related adverse events because of administration of a psychedelic. There were also “very few” acute (6.5%) or postacute (3.0%) elevations in suicidality, “providing support for the safety of psychedelic therapy within controlled contexts,” the researchers write.

They caution, however, that large controlled trials that specifically evaluate the effect of psychedelic therapy on suicidality are needed.
 

Promising avenue

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel Grossman, BS, and Peter Hendricks, PhD, department of health behavior, University of Alabama at Birmingham, note that results of this review warrant “optimism” for use of psychedelics for treatment of suicidality.

Based on this study and others, classic psychedelic therapy for suicidality appears to be a “promising avenue” for further investigation, they write.

However, research and anecdotes about increased suicidality and other self-harm attributed to psychedelic therapy, “though evidently rare, remain a critical concern” for further research to address, Dr. Grossman and Dr. Hendricks add.

The hope is that future research “clarifies who is most subject to these risks, what factors best identify them, and how best to navigate their treatment safely,” they write.

The meta-analysis had no funding. Dr. Weissman receives funding from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and serves on the advisory board of GoodCap Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hendricks is on the scientific advisory board of Bright Minds Biosciences, Eleusis Benefit Corporation, and Rest Pharmaceuticals.

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

A commonly held belief that classic psychedelic therapy can trigger suicidal thoughts, actions, or other types of self-harm is not supported by research, and, in fact, the opposite may be true.

Results from a meta-analysis of individual patient data showed that psychedelic therapy was associated with large, acute, and sustained decreases in suicidality across a range of clinical patient populations.

“This is the first analysis to synthesize suicidality outcome data from recent clinical trials with psychedelics. It gives us a better understanding of the effects of psychedelics on suicidality in the context of clinical trials,” study investigator Cory Weissman, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

The evidence suggests psychedelic therapy “may reduce suicidal ideation when administered in the appropriate setting and offered to carefully screened patients,” Dr. Weissman said.

The findings were published online Jan. 18 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

More research needed

The analysis included seven psychedelic therapy clinical trials that had data on suicidality. Five of the trials used psilocybin plus psychotherapy and two used ayahuasca plus psychotherapy. All seven trials had a “low” risk of bias.

Patients included in the trials had treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), recurrent MDD, AIDS-related demoralization, and distress related to life-threatening cancer.

The meta-analytic results showed significant decreases in suicidality at all acute time points (80 to 240 minutes post administration) and at most post-acute time points (1 day to 4 months post administration).

Effect sizes for reductions in suicidality were “large” at all acute time points, with standardized mean differences (SMD) ranging from -1.48 to -1.72, and remained large from 1 day to 3-4 months after therapy (SMD range, -1.50 to -2.36).

At 6 months, the effect size for reductions in suicidality with psychedelic therapy was “medium” (SMD, -0.65).

Large effect sizes for reductions in suicidality occurred across the different patient populations represented in the trial, the investigators note.

No study reported any suicide-related adverse events because of administration of a psychedelic. There were also “very few” acute (6.5%) or postacute (3.0%) elevations in suicidality, “providing support for the safety of psychedelic therapy within controlled contexts,” the researchers write.

They caution, however, that large controlled trials that specifically evaluate the effect of psychedelic therapy on suicidality are needed.
 

Promising avenue

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel Grossman, BS, and Peter Hendricks, PhD, department of health behavior, University of Alabama at Birmingham, note that results of this review warrant “optimism” for use of psychedelics for treatment of suicidality.

Based on this study and others, classic psychedelic therapy for suicidality appears to be a “promising avenue” for further investigation, they write.

However, research and anecdotes about increased suicidality and other self-harm attributed to psychedelic therapy, “though evidently rare, remain a critical concern” for further research to address, Dr. Grossman and Dr. Hendricks add.

The hope is that future research “clarifies who is most subject to these risks, what factors best identify them, and how best to navigate their treatment safely,” they write.

The meta-analysis had no funding. Dr. Weissman receives funding from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and serves on the advisory board of GoodCap Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hendricks is on the scientific advisory board of Bright Minds Biosciences, Eleusis Benefit Corporation, and Rest Pharmaceuticals.

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

One clinic morning in an office visit, I stood next to the door talking, hand on the doorknob ready to exit. My elderly patient was sitting in the chair next to the door, family member in another, as I attempted my exit. Suddenly, as if looking for something, my patient locked her gaze to my abdomen and began to slowly advance herself forward, eyes squinting for a better view. She had found something. Poke, poke, poke. Three pokes in quick succession into my apparently protruding abdomen stoked an internal horror that I dared not release onto my face. How in the hell could she know? My heart sank – the signs were still there. 

“There’s something in there,” she said with a seasoned certainty.

“No there’s not,” I said trying hard to hide any emotion. 

“Yes, there is,” she said flatly. 

“Grannie, no there isn’t,” her family member interrupted, unknowingly saving me. I thanked them again and quickly left the room. 

My patient had the ongoings of slowly progressing dementia. Little did she know she was right. Maybe she had known something in another time and space. Either way, I wasn’t prepared to tell the story. She wasn’t prepared to fully understand. 

I tried to forge on to see the next patient. Tears began welling in both eyes. I tilted my head back slightly to prevent the water from falling. I wanted to feel offended, but she couldn’t have known the war my body was fighting at the time. I had not yet shared the pregnancy news with this particular patient, and yet her knowing was telling in a sense. I’m learning that the old folks always know. 

I was at work, actively having yet another miscarriage. This was the second of two. This most recent time, we found out at 9 weeks that our baby had stopped growing about a week or so earlier. Cue the denial. Cue the rage. Cue the devastation. 

Thinking back, with each pregnancy discovery, we did not wait the customary 3 months before telling anyone. Just about everyone knew. We were immediately excited to start sharing with friends, family, coworkers, and even patients early on. We knew the risks in my 40-something age group but were quintessentially optimistic. 

I am a family medicine physician with expert-level knowledge and clinical experiences in women’s health counseling, contraception, conception, and pregnancy. In my training, I’ve delivered babies, been elbow-deep searching for wayward tissue from bleeding uteri, and sutured gaping vaginal lacerations. I’ve cried with new mothers at the end of long labors. I’ve been bear-hugged by doting new fathers. I have an abundance of medical knowledge, and yet the pain and struggle of miscarriage over the past 2.5 years has twice reduced me to absolute pieces. There was no course to teach me how to navigate loss within my own body, no textbook to study so that I could test out of the experience. Life hit us dead-on, and I was broken.

I can say that the experience of a miscarriage does not get easier with each subsequent loss. At least for me, the emotions were always raw and tender. Each one was a new gash to my emotional and physical health. My sanity bled out. I was physically exhausted. The struggles of being a health care worker in the midst of a global pandemic I’m sure did not help the situation. My first miscarriage was just before the start of the pandemic. I was in New York visiting family and after dinner at Tavern on the Green, of all places, when I began showing signs. Two days later, I was at the coffee station in our clinic cafeteria adding my cream and sugar when my ob.gyn.’s office called. The hCG levels were probably too low; a miscarriage was likely. I kept my composure, walked out of the cafeteria, got my car keys, went to my car, and proceeded to scream at the top of my lungs for a few minutes. Afterward, I went back to finish up my work and canceled my clinic for the rest of the day. 

For my second miscarriage, I was laying in my doctor’s office getting an ultrasound. I had started bleeding the previous day but thought that the subchorionic hemorrhage noted on the last ultrasound might be the culprit. The bleeding was light. That’s the thing about being a pregnant physician: We know too much. The image on the screen looked abnormal, the remnants a ghost of its former self. I knew something was wrong but held out some hope. She searched and turned and pressed the transducer into my belly for a seemingly better view. She apologized for not finding the heartbeat. How is this happening again?

So how does one get through the loss of multiple pregnancies? I know my husband and I worked hard to get through each loss. We did all the right things a good therapist would recommend: Be present in the moment, go with your feelings, allow yourself to feel everything. There were no wrong emotions. Little by little we grieved and healed, grieved and healed. Having a successful pregnancy did help. Miracles are not promised but I believe we were sent one, and her name is Giavonna Barbara. Bookended by miscarriages, she has made me realize just how precious and delicate life really is. She is our absolute world and joy. 

I’ve learned twice now that men mourn differently than women. Not any less, just in a different way. There is a pain in the silence that often goes unvocalized, but it is of no less value. My husband and I allowed each other to heal in our own unique ways, and that has made all of the difference. I think I knew I was doing okay when one day I found something funny and I let out the heartiest laugh my belly could muster. A different purpose was renewed. Tears were harder to come by. Hope for the future again sprung eternal. Life went on and so did we. 

Looking back, I realize that having a miscarriage and working as a physician in the middle of a global pandemic pushed me to my emotional and physical limits. There is a second-guessing of sorts that occurs. Did the miscarriage happen because I was under so much stress at work? It had happened in the past, was this going to continue to happen? 

I can say that I was great at compartmentalizing emotions. I’d try and box them away until I got off of work and then turn them on like a switch once I hit the driver’s seat. It’s easy as a busy physician with so many patients to see, messages to return, notes to write, students and residents to teach, and programs to run to completely tune out the thought of mourning. Temporarily anyway. Work was actually a welcome distraction at times. A purpose. The journey to healing is individualized and can’t be rushed. I like to think that I heal a little bit more every day thinking about the losses and gains that I’ve had. I’m grateful for the experience and growth. 

In 2022, I’m looking forward to continuing my healing journey among the twists and turns of the pandemic. I now bring a different level of understanding and empathy to my patients who are undergoing or who have undergone a miscarriage. There will always be a piece of me that viscerally mourns with them. We have a hidden shared experience. I believe I am a better physician because of those lessons learned from my own personal tragedy. Now, I look forward to sharing big belly laughs with my family and friends and savoring the small, quiet moments with my husband and daughter. 

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

One clinic morning in an office visit, I stood next to the door talking, hand on the doorknob ready to exit. My elderly patient was sitting in the chair next to the door, family member in another, as I attempted my exit. Suddenly, as if looking for something, my patient locked her gaze to my abdomen and began to slowly advance herself forward, eyes squinting for a better view. She had found something. Poke, poke, poke. Three pokes in quick succession into my apparently protruding abdomen stoked an internal horror that I dared not release onto my face. How in the hell could she know? My heart sank – the signs were still there. 

“There’s something in there,” she said with a seasoned certainty.

“No there’s not,” I said trying hard to hide any emotion. 

“Yes, there is,” she said flatly. 

“Grannie, no there isn’t,” her family member interrupted, unknowingly saving me. I thanked them again and quickly left the room. 

My patient had the ongoings of slowly progressing dementia. Little did she know she was right. Maybe she had known something in another time and space. Either way, I wasn’t prepared to tell the story. She wasn’t prepared to fully understand. 

I tried to forge on to see the next patient. Tears began welling in both eyes. I tilted my head back slightly to prevent the water from falling. I wanted to feel offended, but she couldn’t have known the war my body was fighting at the time. I had not yet shared the pregnancy news with this particular patient, and yet her knowing was telling in a sense. I’m learning that the old folks always know. 

I was at work, actively having yet another miscarriage. This was the second of two. This most recent time, we found out at 9 weeks that our baby had stopped growing about a week or so earlier. Cue the denial. Cue the rage. Cue the devastation. 

Thinking back, with each pregnancy discovery, we did not wait the customary 3 months before telling anyone. Just about everyone knew. We were immediately excited to start sharing with friends, family, coworkers, and even patients early on. We knew the risks in my 40-something age group but were quintessentially optimistic. 

I am a family medicine physician with expert-level knowledge and clinical experiences in women’s health counseling, contraception, conception, and pregnancy. In my training, I’ve delivered babies, been elbow-deep searching for wayward tissue from bleeding uteri, and sutured gaping vaginal lacerations. I’ve cried with new mothers at the end of long labors. I’ve been bear-hugged by doting new fathers. I have an abundance of medical knowledge, and yet the pain and struggle of miscarriage over the past 2.5 years has twice reduced me to absolute pieces. There was no course to teach me how to navigate loss within my own body, no textbook to study so that I could test out of the experience. Life hit us dead-on, and I was broken.

I can say that the experience of a miscarriage does not get easier with each subsequent loss. At least for me, the emotions were always raw and tender. Each one was a new gash to my emotional and physical health. My sanity bled out. I was physically exhausted. The struggles of being a health care worker in the midst of a global pandemic I’m sure did not help the situation. My first miscarriage was just before the start of the pandemic. I was in New York visiting family and after dinner at Tavern on the Green, of all places, when I began showing signs. Two days later, I was at the coffee station in our clinic cafeteria adding my cream and sugar when my ob.gyn.’s office called. The hCG levels were probably too low; a miscarriage was likely. I kept my composure, walked out of the cafeteria, got my car keys, went to my car, and proceeded to scream at the top of my lungs for a few minutes. Afterward, I went back to finish up my work and canceled my clinic for the rest of the day. 

For my second miscarriage, I was laying in my doctor’s office getting an ultrasound. I had started bleeding the previous day but thought that the subchorionic hemorrhage noted on the last ultrasound might be the culprit. The bleeding was light. That’s the thing about being a pregnant physician: We know too much. The image on the screen looked abnormal, the remnants a ghost of its former self. I knew something was wrong but held out some hope. She searched and turned and pressed the transducer into my belly for a seemingly better view. She apologized for not finding the heartbeat. How is this happening again?

So how does one get through the loss of multiple pregnancies? I know my husband and I worked hard to get through each loss. We did all the right things a good therapist would recommend: Be present in the moment, go with your feelings, allow yourself to feel everything. There were no wrong emotions. Little by little we grieved and healed, grieved and healed. Having a successful pregnancy did help. Miracles are not promised but I believe we were sent one, and her name is Giavonna Barbara. Bookended by miscarriages, she has made me realize just how precious and delicate life really is. She is our absolute world and joy. 

I’ve learned twice now that men mourn differently than women. Not any less, just in a different way. There is a pain in the silence that often goes unvocalized, but it is of no less value. My husband and I allowed each other to heal in our own unique ways, and that has made all of the difference. I think I knew I was doing okay when one day I found something funny and I let out the heartiest laugh my belly could muster. A different purpose was renewed. Tears were harder to come by. Hope for the future again sprung eternal. Life went on and so did we. 

Looking back, I realize that having a miscarriage and working as a physician in the middle of a global pandemic pushed me to my emotional and physical limits. There is a second-guessing of sorts that occurs. Did the miscarriage happen because I was under so much stress at work? It had happened in the past, was this going to continue to happen? 

I can say that I was great at compartmentalizing emotions. I’d try and box them away until I got off of work and then turn them on like a switch once I hit the driver’s seat. It’s easy as a busy physician with so many patients to see, messages to return, notes to write, students and residents to teach, and programs to run to completely tune out the thought of mourning. Temporarily anyway. Work was actually a welcome distraction at times. A purpose. The journey to healing is individualized and can’t be rushed. I like to think that I heal a little bit more every day thinking about the losses and gains that I’ve had. I’m grateful for the experience and growth. 

In 2022, I’m looking forward to continuing my healing journey among the twists and turns of the pandemic. I now bring a different level of understanding and empathy to my patients who are undergoing or who have undergone a miscarriage. There will always be a piece of me that viscerally mourns with them. We have a hidden shared experience. I believe I am a better physician because of those lessons learned from my own personal tragedy. Now, I look forward to sharing big belly laughs with my family and friends and savoring the small, quiet moments with my husband and daughter. 

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

One clinic morning in an office visit, I stood next to the door talking, hand on the doorknob ready to exit. My elderly patient was sitting in the chair next to the door, family member in another, as I attempted my exit. Suddenly, as if looking for something, my patient locked her gaze to my abdomen and began to slowly advance herself forward, eyes squinting for a better view. She had found something. Poke, poke, poke. Three pokes in quick succession into my apparently protruding abdomen stoked an internal horror that I dared not release onto my face. How in the hell could she know? My heart sank – the signs were still there. 

“There’s something in there,” she said with a seasoned certainty.

“No there’s not,” I said trying hard to hide any emotion. 

“Yes, there is,” she said flatly. 

“Grannie, no there isn’t,” her family member interrupted, unknowingly saving me. I thanked them again and quickly left the room. 

My patient had the ongoings of slowly progressing dementia. Little did she know she was right. Maybe she had known something in another time and space. Either way, I wasn’t prepared to tell the story. She wasn’t prepared to fully understand. 

I tried to forge on to see the next patient. Tears began welling in both eyes. I tilted my head back slightly to prevent the water from falling. I wanted to feel offended, but she couldn’t have known the war my body was fighting at the time. I had not yet shared the pregnancy news with this particular patient, and yet her knowing was telling in a sense. I’m learning that the old folks always know. 

I was at work, actively having yet another miscarriage. This was the second of two. This most recent time, we found out at 9 weeks that our baby had stopped growing about a week or so earlier. Cue the denial. Cue the rage. Cue the devastation. 

Thinking back, with each pregnancy discovery, we did not wait the customary 3 months before telling anyone. Just about everyone knew. We were immediately excited to start sharing with friends, family, coworkers, and even patients early on. We knew the risks in my 40-something age group but were quintessentially optimistic. 

I am a family medicine physician with expert-level knowledge and clinical experiences in women’s health counseling, contraception, conception, and pregnancy. In my training, I’ve delivered babies, been elbow-deep searching for wayward tissue from bleeding uteri, and sutured gaping vaginal lacerations. I’ve cried with new mothers at the end of long labors. I’ve been bear-hugged by doting new fathers. I have an abundance of medical knowledge, and yet the pain and struggle of miscarriage over the past 2.5 years has twice reduced me to absolute pieces. There was no course to teach me how to navigate loss within my own body, no textbook to study so that I could test out of the experience. Life hit us dead-on, and I was broken.

I can say that the experience of a miscarriage does not get easier with each subsequent loss. At least for me, the emotions were always raw and tender. Each one was a new gash to my emotional and physical health. My sanity bled out. I was physically exhausted. The struggles of being a health care worker in the midst of a global pandemic I’m sure did not help the situation. My first miscarriage was just before the start of the pandemic. I was in New York visiting family and after dinner at Tavern on the Green, of all places, when I began showing signs. Two days later, I was at the coffee station in our clinic cafeteria adding my cream and sugar when my ob.gyn.’s office called. The hCG levels were probably too low; a miscarriage was likely. I kept my composure, walked out of the cafeteria, got my car keys, went to my car, and proceeded to scream at the top of my lungs for a few minutes. Afterward, I went back to finish up my work and canceled my clinic for the rest of the day. 

For my second miscarriage, I was laying in my doctor’s office getting an ultrasound. I had started bleeding the previous day but thought that the subchorionic hemorrhage noted on the last ultrasound might be the culprit. The bleeding was light. That’s the thing about being a pregnant physician: We know too much. The image on the screen looked abnormal, the remnants a ghost of its former self. I knew something was wrong but held out some hope. She searched and turned and pressed the transducer into my belly for a seemingly better view. She apologized for not finding the heartbeat. How is this happening again?

So how does one get through the loss of multiple pregnancies? I know my husband and I worked hard to get through each loss. We did all the right things a good therapist would recommend: Be present in the moment, go with your feelings, allow yourself to feel everything. There were no wrong emotions. Little by little we grieved and healed, grieved and healed. Having a successful pregnancy did help. Miracles are not promised but I believe we were sent one, and her name is Giavonna Barbara. Bookended by miscarriages, she has made me realize just how precious and delicate life really is. She is our absolute world and joy. 

I’ve learned twice now that men mourn differently than women. Not any less, just in a different way. There is a pain in the silence that often goes unvocalized, but it is of no less value. My husband and I allowed each other to heal in our own unique ways, and that has made all of the difference. I think I knew I was doing okay when one day I found something funny and I let out the heartiest laugh my belly could muster. A different purpose was renewed. Tears were harder to come by. Hope for the future again sprung eternal. Life went on and so did we. 

Looking back, I realize that having a miscarriage and working as a physician in the middle of a global pandemic pushed me to my emotional and physical limits. There is a second-guessing of sorts that occurs. Did the miscarriage happen because I was under so much stress at work? It had happened in the past, was this going to continue to happen? 

I can say that I was great at compartmentalizing emotions. I’d try and box them away until I got off of work and then turn them on like a switch once I hit the driver’s seat. It’s easy as a busy physician with so many patients to see, messages to return, notes to write, students and residents to teach, and programs to run to completely tune out the thought of mourning. Temporarily anyway. Work was actually a welcome distraction at times. A purpose. The journey to healing is individualized and can’t be rushed. I like to think that I heal a little bit more every day thinking about the losses and gains that I’ve had. I’m grateful for the experience and growth. 

In 2022, I’m looking forward to continuing my healing journey among the twists and turns of the pandemic. I now bring a different level of understanding and empathy to my patients who are undergoing or who have undergone a miscarriage. There will always be a piece of me that viscerally mourns with them. We have a hidden shared experience. I believe I am a better physician because of those lessons learned from my own personal tragedy. Now, I look forward to sharing big belly laughs with my family and friends and savoring the small, quiet moments with my husband and daughter. 

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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