Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

“So you want to be a gastroenterologist? What do you really want to do?” This is not an uncommon question that a trainee is faced with when progressing through residency and gastroenterology fellowship.

The list of possibilities includes general gastroenterology, advanced endoscopy, transplant hepatology, and neurogastroenterology and motility. From there, each subspecialty can be broken down further into organ system or a specific procedure of interest. Another necessary question is whether to pursue a career in academics or private practice. When it comes to the decision to proceed with a fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, there are two pathways that can be taken. The first is for the resident who is interested in gaining experience in gastroenterology prior to starting a general gastroenterology fellowship (there are two programs that currently allow for this pathway). The other track is for those who have completed a general gastroenterology fellowship and are looking to enhance their academic careers by pursuing additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility.

There is currently a need for gastroenterologists interested in neurogastroenterology and motility. Among the most common diagnoses in an ambulatory setting, based on International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding, are abdominal pain, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, nausea and vomiting, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and dysphagia.^1,2 While many fellows are exposed to a wide range of motility patients during general gastroenterology fellowship, there is typically not a sufficient amount of training to attain “level 2” proficiency.^2,3 In an effort to help standardize training there are recommended thresholds established and advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility can help fellows to attain that proficiency.^2,3 The extra year can also help you prepare to run a motility lab, train nurses, establish lab protocols and quality standards, and manage referrals, which are important skills as a neurogastroenterology and motility specialist.
 

Types of programs

There are several different types of motility programs available. As mentioned previously, some programs afford individuals an opportunity to gain additional experience in gastroenterology before progressing to general gastroenterology fellowship. There are two programs that offer a 1-year fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, both prior to or after a general gastroenterology fellowship. Four programs offer 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships only after a general gastroenterology fellowship. While the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships cover esophageal motility, there are four programs that specifically focus solely on the esophagus (Table 1).

Where to find programs

Currently, there is not a singular list of neurogastroenterology and motility programs available for review as you might find with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency or fellowship. At present, the best way to identify the available programs is to search online. Motivation to select a specific program may be related to individual preference and can include geography and department expertise; this ultimately helps to create a focused list. With regard to the ANMS 1-month Clinical Training Program, the list of available programs is available on the society’s website and is for fellows currently in training who wish to incorporate neurogastroenterology and motility into their general GI fellowship.

How to apply

Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility is currently a non-ACGME pathway and does not offer a match process for its applicants. After identifying a program of interest, one can find specific instructions on how to apply at the programs’ websites. Typically the process involves reaching out to the program director, writing a letter of interest or personal statement, providing letters of recommendation, and interviewing. Each program has some variability in what is required and attention should be paid to the criteria listed on the specific website.

My experience

I was fortunate to have substantial exposure to esophageal motility in my general gastroenterology fellowship. Gaining this experience was invaluable and laid the foundation for my interest in neurogastroenterology and motility, and, specifically, esophageal dysmotility. My interest in neurogastroenterology and motility then collided with my desire to pursue a career in academics. Knowing the general trajectory for my future career, I began exploring the possibility of undergoing an additional 1-year fellowship early in my second year of GI fellowship. I worked closely with my program director to help define my future goals and to identify available places that would help me attain those goals. While I continued to have an interest in the esophagus, additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility would broaden my understanding and enhance my ability to manage complex patients and perform research at a tertiary care center. I investigated the different neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship programs online and followed the online application instructions. Utilizing national gastroenterology society conferences as networking opportunities, I was able to meet with the program director of my current neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship. In my third year of general gastroenterology fellowship I formally interviewed with the motility group at Johns Hopkins and was later accepted into the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship program.

Now, nearing the end of my 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship, I reflect on my extremely positive experience. Throughout the course of the year I have been able to work with multiple GI providers — each with their own area of expertise within the field. There has been a profound exposure to a wide variety of patients with a spectrum of motility conditions covering the entire GI tract. There has been ample opportunity to read motility studies with the guidance and support of the motility faculty to further enhance my skills. The additional year has broadened my exposure to, and the management of, the biopsychosocial aspect of this specific patient population. In line with that, I have had the ability to grow with regard to my use of pharmacology and recognize which symptom might benefit from a particular neuromodulator. An emphasis was also placed on learning the gut-brain axis, and, through multidisciplinary clinics, I worked closely with other disciplines such as psychiatry and GI clinical psychology. Furthermore, the additional year has allowed me to be involved in several research projects within neurogastroenterology and motility that will undoubtedly enhance my future career.

 

Conclusion

Deciding to pursue an additional year in neurogastroenterology and motility has been one that has helped to give a solid direction to my budding career. It has left me confident in managing this diverse and complex patient population and has helped prepare me for a career in academic gastroenterology. For those who are interested in academic neurogastroenterology and motility, an additional fellowship can help define you as a gastroenterologist and help you to pursue the career of your dreams.

Dr. Sloan is a clinical instructor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

References

1. Peery A. et al. Burden of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015;149:1731-41.e3.

2. Rao S., Parkman H. Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and gastrointestinal motility. Gastroenterology 2015;148:881-5.

3. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The gastroenterology core curriculum, third edition. Gastroenterology 2007;132:2012-18.

“So you want to be a gastroenterologist? What do you really want to do?” This is not an uncommon question that a trainee is faced with when progressing through residency and gastroenterology fellowship.

The list of possibilities includes general gastroenterology, advanced endoscopy, transplant hepatology, and neurogastroenterology and motility. From there, each subspecialty can be broken down further into organ system or a specific procedure of interest. Another necessary question is whether to pursue a career in academics or private practice. When it comes to the decision to proceed with a fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, there are two pathways that can be taken. The first is for the resident who is interested in gaining experience in gastroenterology prior to starting a general gastroenterology fellowship (there are two programs that currently allow for this pathway). The other track is for those who have completed a general gastroenterology fellowship and are looking to enhance their academic careers by pursuing additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility.

There is currently a need for gastroenterologists interested in neurogastroenterology and motility. Among the most common diagnoses in an ambulatory setting, based on International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding, are abdominal pain, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, nausea and vomiting, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and dysphagia.^1,2 While many fellows are exposed to a wide range of motility patients during general gastroenterology fellowship, there is typically not a sufficient amount of training to attain “level 2” proficiency.^2,3 In an effort to help standardize training there are recommended thresholds established and advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility can help fellows to attain that proficiency.^2,3 The extra year can also help you prepare to run a motility lab, train nurses, establish lab protocols and quality standards, and manage referrals, which are important skills as a neurogastroenterology and motility specialist.
 

Types of programs

There are several different types of motility programs available. As mentioned previously, some programs afford individuals an opportunity to gain additional experience in gastroenterology before progressing to general gastroenterology fellowship. There are two programs that offer a 1-year fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, both prior to or after a general gastroenterology fellowship. Four programs offer 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships only after a general gastroenterology fellowship. While the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships cover esophageal motility, there are four programs that specifically focus solely on the esophagus (Table 1).

Where to find programs

Currently, there is not a singular list of neurogastroenterology and motility programs available for review as you might find with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency or fellowship. At present, the best way to identify the available programs is to search online. Motivation to select a specific program may be related to individual preference and can include geography and department expertise; this ultimately helps to create a focused list. With regard to the ANMS 1-month Clinical Training Program, the list of available programs is available on the society’s website and is for fellows currently in training who wish to incorporate neurogastroenterology and motility into their general GI fellowship.

How to apply

Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility is currently a non-ACGME pathway and does not offer a match process for its applicants. After identifying a program of interest, one can find specific instructions on how to apply at the programs’ websites. Typically the process involves reaching out to the program director, writing a letter of interest or personal statement, providing letters of recommendation, and interviewing. Each program has some variability in what is required and attention should be paid to the criteria listed on the specific website.

My experience

I was fortunate to have substantial exposure to esophageal motility in my general gastroenterology fellowship. Gaining this experience was invaluable and laid the foundation for my interest in neurogastroenterology and motility, and, specifically, esophageal dysmotility. My interest in neurogastroenterology and motility then collided with my desire to pursue a career in academics. Knowing the general trajectory for my future career, I began exploring the possibility of undergoing an additional 1-year fellowship early in my second year of GI fellowship. I worked closely with my program director to help define my future goals and to identify available places that would help me attain those goals. While I continued to have an interest in the esophagus, additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility would broaden my understanding and enhance my ability to manage complex patients and perform research at a tertiary care center. I investigated the different neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship programs online and followed the online application instructions. Utilizing national gastroenterology society conferences as networking opportunities, I was able to meet with the program director of my current neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship. In my third year of general gastroenterology fellowship I formally interviewed with the motility group at Johns Hopkins and was later accepted into the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship program.

Now, nearing the end of my 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship, I reflect on my extremely positive experience. Throughout the course of the year I have been able to work with multiple GI providers — each with their own area of expertise within the field. There has been a profound exposure to a wide variety of patients with a spectrum of motility conditions covering the entire GI tract. There has been ample opportunity to read motility studies with the guidance and support of the motility faculty to further enhance my skills. The additional year has broadened my exposure to, and the management of, the biopsychosocial aspect of this specific patient population. In line with that, I have had the ability to grow with regard to my use of pharmacology and recognize which symptom might benefit from a particular neuromodulator. An emphasis was also placed on learning the gut-brain axis, and, through multidisciplinary clinics, I worked closely with other disciplines such as psychiatry and GI clinical psychology. Furthermore, the additional year has allowed me to be involved in several research projects within neurogastroenterology and motility that will undoubtedly enhance my future career.

 

Conclusion

Deciding to pursue an additional year in neurogastroenterology and motility has been one that has helped to give a solid direction to my budding career. It has left me confident in managing this diverse and complex patient population and has helped prepare me for a career in academic gastroenterology. For those who are interested in academic neurogastroenterology and motility, an additional fellowship can help define you as a gastroenterologist and help you to pursue the career of your dreams.

Dr. Sloan is a clinical instructor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

References

1. Peery A. et al. Burden of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015;149:1731-41.e3.

2. Rao S., Parkman H. Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and gastrointestinal motility. Gastroenterology 2015;148:881-5.

3. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The gastroenterology core curriculum, third edition. Gastroenterology 2007;132:2012-18.

“So you want to be a gastroenterologist? What do you really want to do?” This is not an uncommon question that a trainee is faced with when progressing through residency and gastroenterology fellowship.

The list of possibilities includes general gastroenterology, advanced endoscopy, transplant hepatology, and neurogastroenterology and motility. From there, each subspecialty can be broken down further into organ system or a specific procedure of interest. Another necessary question is whether to pursue a career in academics or private practice. When it comes to the decision to proceed with a fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, there are two pathways that can be taken. The first is for the resident who is interested in gaining experience in gastroenterology prior to starting a general gastroenterology fellowship (there are two programs that currently allow for this pathway). The other track is for those who have completed a general gastroenterology fellowship and are looking to enhance their academic careers by pursuing additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility.

There is currently a need for gastroenterologists interested in neurogastroenterology and motility. Among the most common diagnoses in an ambulatory setting, based on International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding, are abdominal pain, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, nausea and vomiting, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and dysphagia.^1,2 While many fellows are exposed to a wide range of motility patients during general gastroenterology fellowship, there is typically not a sufficient amount of training to attain “level 2” proficiency.^2,3 In an effort to help standardize training there are recommended thresholds established and advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility can help fellows to attain that proficiency.^2,3 The extra year can also help you prepare to run a motility lab, train nurses, establish lab protocols and quality standards, and manage referrals, which are important skills as a neurogastroenterology and motility specialist.
 

Types of programs

There are several different types of motility programs available. As mentioned previously, some programs afford individuals an opportunity to gain additional experience in gastroenterology before progressing to general gastroenterology fellowship. There are two programs that offer a 1-year fellowship in neurogastroenterology and motility, both prior to or after a general gastroenterology fellowship. Four programs offer 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships only after a general gastroenterology fellowship. While the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowships cover esophageal motility, there are four programs that specifically focus solely on the esophagus (Table 1).

Where to find programs

Currently, there is not a singular list of neurogastroenterology and motility programs available for review as you might find with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency or fellowship. At present, the best way to identify the available programs is to search online. Motivation to select a specific program may be related to individual preference and can include geography and department expertise; this ultimately helps to create a focused list. With regard to the ANMS 1-month Clinical Training Program, the list of available programs is available on the society’s website and is for fellows currently in training who wish to incorporate neurogastroenterology and motility into their general GI fellowship.

How to apply

Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and motility is currently a non-ACGME pathway and does not offer a match process for its applicants. After identifying a program of interest, one can find specific instructions on how to apply at the programs’ websites. Typically the process involves reaching out to the program director, writing a letter of interest or personal statement, providing letters of recommendation, and interviewing. Each program has some variability in what is required and attention should be paid to the criteria listed on the specific website.

My experience

I was fortunate to have substantial exposure to esophageal motility in my general gastroenterology fellowship. Gaining this experience was invaluable and laid the foundation for my interest in neurogastroenterology and motility, and, specifically, esophageal dysmotility. My interest in neurogastroenterology and motility then collided with my desire to pursue a career in academics. Knowing the general trajectory for my future career, I began exploring the possibility of undergoing an additional 1-year fellowship early in my second year of GI fellowship. I worked closely with my program director to help define my future goals and to identify available places that would help me attain those goals. While I continued to have an interest in the esophagus, additional training in neurogastroenterology and motility would broaden my understanding and enhance my ability to manage complex patients and perform research at a tertiary care center. I investigated the different neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship programs online and followed the online application instructions. Utilizing national gastroenterology society conferences as networking opportunities, I was able to meet with the program director of my current neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship. In my third year of general gastroenterology fellowship I formally interviewed with the motility group at Johns Hopkins and was later accepted into the neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship program.

Now, nearing the end of my 1-year neurogastroenterology and motility fellowship, I reflect on my extremely positive experience. Throughout the course of the year I have been able to work with multiple GI providers — each with their own area of expertise within the field. There has been a profound exposure to a wide variety of patients with a spectrum of motility conditions covering the entire GI tract. There has been ample opportunity to read motility studies with the guidance and support of the motility faculty to further enhance my skills. The additional year has broadened my exposure to, and the management of, the biopsychosocial aspect of this specific patient population. In line with that, I have had the ability to grow with regard to my use of pharmacology and recognize which symptom might benefit from a particular neuromodulator. An emphasis was also placed on learning the gut-brain axis, and, through multidisciplinary clinics, I worked closely with other disciplines such as psychiatry and GI clinical psychology. Furthermore, the additional year has allowed me to be involved in several research projects within neurogastroenterology and motility that will undoubtedly enhance my future career.

 

Conclusion

Deciding to pursue an additional year in neurogastroenterology and motility has been one that has helped to give a solid direction to my budding career. It has left me confident in managing this diverse and complex patient population and has helped prepare me for a career in academic gastroenterology. For those who are interested in academic neurogastroenterology and motility, an additional fellowship can help define you as a gastroenterologist and help you to pursue the career of your dreams.

Dr. Sloan is a clinical instructor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

References

1. Peery A. et al. Burden of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015;149:1731-41.e3.

2. Rao S., Parkman H. Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and gastrointestinal motility. Gastroenterology 2015;148:881-5.

3. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The gastroenterology core curriculum, third edition. Gastroenterology 2007;132:2012-18.

Sexual assault in the military is more likely to cause lasting sexual pain in female veterans than a history of childhood sexual abuse, according to an observational study involving interviews with more than 1,000 military women.

asiseeit/Getty Images

Female veterans with histories of both childhood sexual abuse and sexual assault in the military were 4.33 times more likely to report sexual pain than female veterans with no history of sexual assault; women whose history of sexual assault occurred in the military only were 2.37 times more likely to report sexual pain. Those with histories of childhood sexual abuse but no military assaults were 1.75 times more likely to report sexual pain than those who had no history of sexual assault.

The findings suggest that sexual assault in the military is more detrimental to sexual function than childhood sexual abuse alone, which “is distinct from the pattern long observed in civilian women that childhood sexual abuse confers a greater risk for sexual pain than adulthood sexual assault,” Carey S. Pulverman, PhD, then of the Department of Veterans Affairs Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans in Waco, Tex., and coinvestigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The findings come from a secondary analysis of data collected for a larger project titled Sexual Violence and Women Veterans’ Gynecologic Health . The research team conducted telephone interviews with 1,004 female veterans younger than 52 years of age (mean, 38 years) who were enrolled at two large Midwestern VA medical centers and associated clinics. Sexual pain was assessed by one question: “Does it hurt you to have sexual intercourse or penetration?”

The study also identified high comorbidity between sexual pain and mental health concerns. As with sexual pain, rates of depression and PTSD were highest among female veterans with histories of both sexual abuse in childhood and sexual assault in the military, followed by women with histories of sexual assaults in the military alone, and then women with histories of childhood sexual abuse alone. Women with both histories were 6.35 times more likely to report PTSD, and 3.91 times more likely to report depression, compared with female veterans with no history of sexual assault.

Women who experienced sexual assault during their childhood and/or while serving in the military also may have been exposed to sexual assault during their pre- or postmilitary adulthood as well, but this was a small number and its effects were not evaluated, the authors noted.

Especially given the “growing numbers of women serving in the military and prevalence of sexual assault in this population,” there’s a need for more research on the sexual function of female veterans and development of “targeted treatments,” the investigators wrote.

For now, providers should be “more comprehensive in their assessment of sexual assault history” and should consider developing relationships with community providers who specialize in sexual health, they added.

The study was funded by the VA. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Pulverman CS et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:63-71.

Sexual assault in the military is more likely to cause lasting sexual pain in female veterans than a history of childhood sexual abuse, according to an observational study involving interviews with more than 1,000 military women.

asiseeit/Getty Images

Female veterans with histories of both childhood sexual abuse and sexual assault in the military were 4.33 times more likely to report sexual pain than female veterans with no history of sexual assault; women whose history of sexual assault occurred in the military only were 2.37 times more likely to report sexual pain. Those with histories of childhood sexual abuse but no military assaults were 1.75 times more likely to report sexual pain than those who had no history of sexual assault.

The findings suggest that sexual assault in the military is more detrimental to sexual function than childhood sexual abuse alone, which “is distinct from the pattern long observed in civilian women that childhood sexual abuse confers a greater risk for sexual pain than adulthood sexual assault,” Carey S. Pulverman, PhD, then of the Department of Veterans Affairs Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans in Waco, Tex., and coinvestigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The findings come from a secondary analysis of data collected for a larger project titled Sexual Violence and Women Veterans’ Gynecologic Health . The research team conducted telephone interviews with 1,004 female veterans younger than 52 years of age (mean, 38 years) who were enrolled at two large Midwestern VA medical centers and associated clinics. Sexual pain was assessed by one question: “Does it hurt you to have sexual intercourse or penetration?”

The study also identified high comorbidity between sexual pain and mental health concerns. As with sexual pain, rates of depression and PTSD were highest among female veterans with histories of both sexual abuse in childhood and sexual assault in the military, followed by women with histories of sexual assaults in the military alone, and then women with histories of childhood sexual abuse alone. Women with both histories were 6.35 times more likely to report PTSD, and 3.91 times more likely to report depression, compared with female veterans with no history of sexual assault.

Women who experienced sexual assault during their childhood and/or while serving in the military also may have been exposed to sexual assault during their pre- or postmilitary adulthood as well, but this was a small number and its effects were not evaluated, the authors noted.

Especially given the “growing numbers of women serving in the military and prevalence of sexual assault in this population,” there’s a need for more research on the sexual function of female veterans and development of “targeted treatments,” the investigators wrote.

For now, providers should be “more comprehensive in their assessment of sexual assault history” and should consider developing relationships with community providers who specialize in sexual health, they added.

The study was funded by the VA. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Pulverman CS et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:63-71.

Sexual assault in the military is more likely to cause lasting sexual pain in female veterans than a history of childhood sexual abuse, according to an observational study involving interviews with more than 1,000 military women.

asiseeit/Getty Images

Female veterans with histories of both childhood sexual abuse and sexual assault in the military were 4.33 times more likely to report sexual pain than female veterans with no history of sexual assault; women whose history of sexual assault occurred in the military only were 2.37 times more likely to report sexual pain. Those with histories of childhood sexual abuse but no military assaults were 1.75 times more likely to report sexual pain than those who had no history of sexual assault.

The findings suggest that sexual assault in the military is more detrimental to sexual function than childhood sexual abuse alone, which “is distinct from the pattern long observed in civilian women that childhood sexual abuse confers a greater risk for sexual pain than adulthood sexual assault,” Carey S. Pulverman, PhD, then of the Department of Veterans Affairs Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans in Waco, Tex., and coinvestigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The findings come from a secondary analysis of data collected for a larger project titled Sexual Violence and Women Veterans’ Gynecologic Health . The research team conducted telephone interviews with 1,004 female veterans younger than 52 years of age (mean, 38 years) who were enrolled at two large Midwestern VA medical centers and associated clinics. Sexual pain was assessed by one question: “Does it hurt you to have sexual intercourse or penetration?”

The study also identified high comorbidity between sexual pain and mental health concerns. As with sexual pain, rates of depression and PTSD were highest among female veterans with histories of both sexual abuse in childhood and sexual assault in the military, followed by women with histories of sexual assaults in the military alone, and then women with histories of childhood sexual abuse alone. Women with both histories were 6.35 times more likely to report PTSD, and 3.91 times more likely to report depression, compared with female veterans with no history of sexual assault.

Women who experienced sexual assault during their childhood and/or while serving in the military also may have been exposed to sexual assault during their pre- or postmilitary adulthood as well, but this was a small number and its effects were not evaluated, the authors noted.

Especially given the “growing numbers of women serving in the military and prevalence of sexual assault in this population,” there’s a need for more research on the sexual function of female veterans and development of “targeted treatments,” the investigators wrote.

For now, providers should be “more comprehensive in their assessment of sexual assault history” and should consider developing relationships with community providers who specialize in sexual health, they added.

The study was funded by the VA. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Pulverman CS et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:63-71.

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

Food insecurity was significantly associated with migraine prevalence in young adults, according to Jason M. Nagata, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

Data were collected from a cross-sectional, nationally representative set of 14,786 young adults in the United States aged 24-32 years who participated in the 2008 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the investigators wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Neurology.

Food insecurity was assessed by self-report through the interview question, “In the past 12 months, was there a time when (you/your household were/was) worried whether food would run out before you would get money to buy more?” Migraine was assessed by a positive answer to the interview question, “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health care professional ever told you that you have or had migraine headaches?”

In all, 1,647 study participants (11%) reported food insecurity; the prevalence of migraine in this group was 23.9%, compared with a prevalence of 13.6% in participants who did not report food insecurity. The association between food insecurity and migraine was significant both before (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.38; P less than .001) and after adjustment (adjusted OR, .58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.95; P less than .001).

“Health care clinicians caring for persons who experience migraine should consider screening for food insecurity as a potential contributor to migraine exacerbations and provide referrals to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [formerly the Food Stamp Program] when appropriate,” the investigators concluded (JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1663).

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by grants from the University of California Global Food Initiative Fellowship, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Pediatric Society, and the Norman Schlossberger Research Fund from the University of California.

[email protected]

Food insecurity was significantly associated with migraine prevalence in young adults, according to Jason M. Nagata, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

Data were collected from a cross-sectional, nationally representative set of 14,786 young adults in the United States aged 24-32 years who participated in the 2008 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the investigators wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Neurology.

Food insecurity was assessed by self-report through the interview question, “In the past 12 months, was there a time when (you/your household were/was) worried whether food would run out before you would get money to buy more?” Migraine was assessed by a positive answer to the interview question, “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health care professional ever told you that you have or had migraine headaches?”

In all, 1,647 study participants (11%) reported food insecurity; the prevalence of migraine in this group was 23.9%, compared with a prevalence of 13.6% in participants who did not report food insecurity. The association between food insecurity and migraine was significant both before (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.38; P less than .001) and after adjustment (adjusted OR, .58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.95; P less than .001).

“Health care clinicians caring for persons who experience migraine should consider screening for food insecurity as a potential contributor to migraine exacerbations and provide referrals to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [formerly the Food Stamp Program] when appropriate,” the investigators concluded (JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1663).

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by grants from the University of California Global Food Initiative Fellowship, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Pediatric Society, and the Norman Schlossberger Research Fund from the University of California.

[email protected]

Food insecurity was significantly associated with migraine prevalence in young adults, according to Jason M. Nagata, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

Data were collected from a cross-sectional, nationally representative set of 14,786 young adults in the United States aged 24-32 years who participated in the 2008 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the investigators wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Neurology.

Food insecurity was assessed by self-report through the interview question, “In the past 12 months, was there a time when (you/your household were/was) worried whether food would run out before you would get money to buy more?” Migraine was assessed by a positive answer to the interview question, “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health care professional ever told you that you have or had migraine headaches?”

In all, 1,647 study participants (11%) reported food insecurity; the prevalence of migraine in this group was 23.9%, compared with a prevalence of 13.6% in participants who did not report food insecurity. The association between food insecurity and migraine was significant both before (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.38; P less than .001) and after adjustment (adjusted OR, .58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.95; P less than .001).

“Health care clinicians caring for persons who experience migraine should consider screening for food insecurity as a potential contributor to migraine exacerbations and provide referrals to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [formerly the Food Stamp Program] when appropriate,” the investigators concluded (JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1663).

No conflicts of interest were reported. The study was supported by grants from the University of California Global Food Initiative Fellowship, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Pediatric Society, and the Norman Schlossberger Research Fund from the University of California.

[email protected]

Almost three-quarters of Americans are concerned about burnout among health care professionals, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

The public is aware “that burnout among pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and other professionals can lead to impaired attention and decreased functioning that threatens to cause medical errors and reduce safety,” the ASHP said when it released data from a survey conducted May 28-30, 2019, by the Harris Poll.

Those data show that 23% of respondents were very concerned and 51% were somewhat concerned about burnout among health care providers. Just over half (53%) of the 2,007 adults involved said that they could tell when a provider was burned out, suggesting that health care professionals “may be conveying signs of burnout to their patients without knowing it,” the society noted.

A majority of respondents (80%) felt that the quality of their care was affected when their physician, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional was burned out, and almost half (47%) said that they would avoid asking questions if their provider appeared burned out because they wouldn’t want to add to that person’s stress, the ASHP said.

“A healthy and thriving clinician workforce is essential to ensure optimal patient health outcomes and safety,” said Paul W. Abramowitz, PharmD, chief executive officer of the ASHP. “Within the healthcare industry, we are working to help build a culture of resilience and well-being to ensure that no patient or clinician is harmed due to burnout; but it takes a concerted effort from all entities involved – providers and healthcare organizations.”

[email protected]

Almost three-quarters of Americans are concerned about burnout among health care professionals, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

The public is aware “that burnout among pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and other professionals can lead to impaired attention and decreased functioning that threatens to cause medical errors and reduce safety,” the ASHP said when it released data from a survey conducted May 28-30, 2019, by the Harris Poll.

Those data show that 23% of respondents were very concerned and 51% were somewhat concerned about burnout among health care providers. Just over half (53%) of the 2,007 adults involved said that they could tell when a provider was burned out, suggesting that health care professionals “may be conveying signs of burnout to their patients without knowing it,” the society noted.

A majority of respondents (80%) felt that the quality of their care was affected when their physician, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional was burned out, and almost half (47%) said that they would avoid asking questions if their provider appeared burned out because they wouldn’t want to add to that person’s stress, the ASHP said.

“A healthy and thriving clinician workforce is essential to ensure optimal patient health outcomes and safety,” said Paul W. Abramowitz, PharmD, chief executive officer of the ASHP. “Within the healthcare industry, we are working to help build a culture of resilience and well-being to ensure that no patient or clinician is harmed due to burnout; but it takes a concerted effort from all entities involved – providers and healthcare organizations.”

[email protected]

Almost three-quarters of Americans are concerned about burnout among health care professionals, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

The public is aware “that burnout among pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and other professionals can lead to impaired attention and decreased functioning that threatens to cause medical errors and reduce safety,” the ASHP said when it released data from a survey conducted May 28-30, 2019, by the Harris Poll.

Those data show that 23% of respondents were very concerned and 51% were somewhat concerned about burnout among health care providers. Just over half (53%) of the 2,007 adults involved said that they could tell when a provider was burned out, suggesting that health care professionals “may be conveying signs of burnout to their patients without knowing it,” the society noted.

A majority of respondents (80%) felt that the quality of their care was affected when their physician, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional was burned out, and almost half (47%) said that they would avoid asking questions if their provider appeared burned out because they wouldn’t want to add to that person’s stress, the ASHP said.

“A healthy and thriving clinician workforce is essential to ensure optimal patient health outcomes and safety,” said Paul W. Abramowitz, PharmD, chief executive officer of the ASHP. “Within the healthcare industry, we are working to help build a culture of resilience and well-being to ensure that no patient or clinician is harmed due to burnout; but it takes a concerted effort from all entities involved – providers and healthcare organizations.”

[email protected]

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Conversations surrounding the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting have begun on SVSConnect. Share what you learned at your favorite session, start a discussion about the Branding Initiative or reminisce about the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala. Keep the conversations going and connect with other attendees you met – or didn’t meet – at the conference. Simply log in with your SVS credentials to get started. Reach out to [email protected] or call 312-334-2300 with questions.

Conversations surrounding the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting have begun on SVSConnect. Share what you learned at your favorite session, start a discussion about the Branding Initiative or reminisce about the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala. Keep the conversations going and connect with other attendees you met – or didn’t meet – at the conference. Simply log in with your SVS credentials to get started. Reach out to [email protected] or call 312-334-2300 with questions.

Conversations surrounding the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting have begun on SVSConnect. Share what you learned at your favorite session, start a discussion about the Branding Initiative or reminisce about the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala. Keep the conversations going and connect with other attendees you met – or didn’t meet – at the conference. Simply log in with your SVS credentials to get started. Reach out to [email protected] or call 312-334-2300 with questions.

The SVS Branding Initiative concepts were introduced at the Vascular Annual Meeting last week. We asked attendees to provide their feedback either at the SVS booth or through the event app. Input from members is vital in moving this forward, and we appreciate all who have shared their thoughts on the topic. If you did not have the opportunity to complete the survey, there is still time! All SVS members are encouraged to provide feedback until the survey closes on June 26. Take the survey here.

The SVS Branding Initiative concepts were introduced at the Vascular Annual Meeting last week. We asked attendees to provide their feedback either at the SVS booth or through the event app. Input from members is vital in moving this forward, and we appreciate all who have shared their thoughts on the topic. If you did not have the opportunity to complete the survey, there is still time! All SVS members are encouraged to provide feedback until the survey closes on June 26. Take the survey here.

The SVS Branding Initiative concepts were introduced at the Vascular Annual Meeting last week. We asked attendees to provide their feedback either at the SVS booth or through the event app. Input from members is vital in moving this forward, and we appreciate all who have shared their thoughts on the topic. If you did not have the opportunity to complete the survey, there is still time! All SVS members are encouraged to provide feedback until the survey closes on June 26. Take the survey here.