A leg ulcer may have many causes, including venous stasis, trauma, vasculitis, infection, or (as in this case) squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), aka Bowen’s Disease.

SCC and SCCis are common skin cancers that occur less frequently than basal cell carcinomas (BCCs).¹ SCCis is normally scaly and hyperkeratotic, but it can manifest in rare cases as a chronic ulcer. Fair skin, long history of sun damage, and immunosuppression are significant risk factors for both SCCis and SCC.

While history and other clinical features may help narrow the diagnosis, a wound that does not heal despite treatments should be biopsied. Shave and punch biopsies are both excellent ways to diagnose an SCCis that has a classic appearance. However, ulcers and blisters can be caused by inflammatory processes (as in pyoderma gangrenosum or a fixed drug eruption) with characteristic findings deeper in the dermis; these lesions are better assessed with a punch biopsy.

In this case, a 4-mm punch biopsy was performed at the tissue edge and showed atypical keratinocytes limited to the epidermis. These atypical keratinocytes are associated with vesicle formation and ulcer, consistent with SCCis.

SCCis transforms into invasive disease in 3% to 5% of cases.² Surgical treatment includes fusiform excision and electrodessication and curettage, both with cure rates that often exceed 90%.^2,3 Nonsurgical options include topical 5-fluorouracil (67%-92% effective), topical imiquimod (75%-93%), and photodynamic therapy (52%-98%).⁴

Treatment choices depend on patient preference and provider capabilities. With surgical options there is the risk of bleeding and the need to care for a healing wound. Nonsurgical treatments can last longer and require topical treatment regimens and medications.

This patient opted for a fusiform excision and linear closure. She will continue to undergo serial skin evaluations twice a year for at least 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, Maine.

A leg ulcer may have many causes, including venous stasis, trauma, vasculitis, infection, or (as in this case) squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), aka Bowen’s Disease.

SCC and SCCis are common skin cancers that occur less frequently than basal cell carcinomas (BCCs).¹ SCCis is normally scaly and hyperkeratotic, but it can manifest in rare cases as a chronic ulcer. Fair skin, long history of sun damage, and immunosuppression are significant risk factors for both SCCis and SCC.

While history and other clinical features may help narrow the diagnosis, a wound that does not heal despite treatments should be biopsied. Shave and punch biopsies are both excellent ways to diagnose an SCCis that has a classic appearance. However, ulcers and blisters can be caused by inflammatory processes (as in pyoderma gangrenosum or a fixed drug eruption) with characteristic findings deeper in the dermis; these lesions are better assessed with a punch biopsy.

In this case, a 4-mm punch biopsy was performed at the tissue edge and showed atypical keratinocytes limited to the epidermis. These atypical keratinocytes are associated with vesicle formation and ulcer, consistent with SCCis.

SCCis transforms into invasive disease in 3% to 5% of cases.² Surgical treatment includes fusiform excision and electrodessication and curettage, both with cure rates that often exceed 90%.^2,3 Nonsurgical options include topical 5-fluorouracil (67%-92% effective), topical imiquimod (75%-93%), and photodynamic therapy (52%-98%).⁴

Treatment choices depend on patient preference and provider capabilities. With surgical options there is the risk of bleeding and the need to care for a healing wound. Nonsurgical treatments can last longer and require topical treatment regimens and medications.

This patient opted for a fusiform excision and linear closure. She will continue to undergo serial skin evaluations twice a year for at least 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, Maine.

A leg ulcer may have many causes, including venous stasis, trauma, vasculitis, infection, or (as in this case) squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), aka Bowen’s Disease.

SCC and SCCis are common skin cancers that occur less frequently than basal cell carcinomas (BCCs).¹ SCCis is normally scaly and hyperkeratotic, but it can manifest in rare cases as a chronic ulcer. Fair skin, long history of sun damage, and immunosuppression are significant risk factors for both SCCis and SCC.

While history and other clinical features may help narrow the diagnosis, a wound that does not heal despite treatments should be biopsied. Shave and punch biopsies are both excellent ways to diagnose an SCCis that has a classic appearance. However, ulcers and blisters can be caused by inflammatory processes (as in pyoderma gangrenosum or a fixed drug eruption) with characteristic findings deeper in the dermis; these lesions are better assessed with a punch biopsy.

In this case, a 4-mm punch biopsy was performed at the tissue edge and showed atypical keratinocytes limited to the epidermis. These atypical keratinocytes are associated with vesicle formation and ulcer, consistent with SCCis.

SCCis transforms into invasive disease in 3% to 5% of cases.² Surgical treatment includes fusiform excision and electrodessication and curettage, both with cure rates that often exceed 90%.^2,3 Nonsurgical options include topical 5-fluorouracil (67%-92% effective), topical imiquimod (75%-93%), and photodynamic therapy (52%-98%).⁴

Treatment choices depend on patient preference and provider capabilities. With surgical options there is the risk of bleeding and the need to care for a healing wound. Nonsurgical treatments can last longer and require topical treatment regimens and medications.

This patient opted for a fusiform excision and linear closure. She will continue to undergo serial skin evaluations twice a year for at least 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, Maine.

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

I’m really going to miss Jimmy Buffett.

I’ve liked his music as far back as I can remember, and was lucky enough to see him in person in the mid-90s.

I’ve written about music before, but its affect on us never fails to amaze me. Songs can be background noise conducive to getting things done. They can also be in the foreground, serving as a mental vacation (or accompanying a real one). They can transport you to another place, briefly clearing your head from the daily goings-on around you. Even if it’s just during the drive home, it’s a welcome escape to a virtual beach and tropical drink.

Songs can bring back memories of certain events or people that we link them to. My dad loved anything by Neil Diamond, and nothing brings back thoughts of Dad more than when my iTunes randomly picks “I Am ... I Said.” Or John Williams’ Star Wars theme, taking me back to the summer of 1977 when I sat, spellbound, by this incredible movie whose magic is still going strong two generations later.

It’s amazing how our brain tries to make music out of nothing. Even in silence we have ear worms, the songs stuck in our head for hours to days (recently I’ve had “I Sing the Body Electric” from the 1980 movie Fame playing in there).

My office is over an MRI scanner, so I can always hear the chiller pumps softly running in the background. Sometimes my brain will turn their rhythmic chirping into a song, altering the pace of the song to fit them. The soft clicking of the ceiling fan, in my home office, does the same thing (for some reason my brain usually tries to fit “Yellow Submarine” to that one, no idea why).

Music is a part of that mysterious essence that makes us human. It touches all of us in some way, which varies between people, songs, and artists.

Jimmy Buffet’s music has a vacation vibe. Songs of the Caribbean & Keys, beaches, bars, boats, and tropical drinks. The 4:12 running time of his most well-known song, “Margaritaville,” gives a brief respite from my day when it comes on.

He passes into the beyond, to the sadness of his family, friends, and fans. But, unlike people, music can be immortal, and so he lives on through his creations. Like, Bach, Lennon, Bowie, Joplin, Sousa, and too many others to count, his work – and the enjoyment we get from it – are a gift left behind for the future.

Tight lines, Jimmy.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m really going to miss Jimmy Buffett.

I’ve liked his music as far back as I can remember, and was lucky enough to see him in person in the mid-90s.

I’ve written about music before, but its affect on us never fails to amaze me. Songs can be background noise conducive to getting things done. They can also be in the foreground, serving as a mental vacation (or accompanying a real one). They can transport you to another place, briefly clearing your head from the daily goings-on around you. Even if it’s just during the drive home, it’s a welcome escape to a virtual beach and tropical drink.

Songs can bring back memories of certain events or people that we link them to. My dad loved anything by Neil Diamond, and nothing brings back thoughts of Dad more than when my iTunes randomly picks “I Am ... I Said.” Or John Williams’ Star Wars theme, taking me back to the summer of 1977 when I sat, spellbound, by this incredible movie whose magic is still going strong two generations later.

It’s amazing how our brain tries to make music out of nothing. Even in silence we have ear worms, the songs stuck in our head for hours to days (recently I’ve had “I Sing the Body Electric” from the 1980 movie Fame playing in there).

My office is over an MRI scanner, so I can always hear the chiller pumps softly running in the background. Sometimes my brain will turn their rhythmic chirping into a song, altering the pace of the song to fit them. The soft clicking of the ceiling fan, in my home office, does the same thing (for some reason my brain usually tries to fit “Yellow Submarine” to that one, no idea why).

Music is a part of that mysterious essence that makes us human. It touches all of us in some way, which varies between people, songs, and artists.

Jimmy Buffet’s music has a vacation vibe. Songs of the Caribbean & Keys, beaches, bars, boats, and tropical drinks. The 4:12 running time of his most well-known song, “Margaritaville,” gives a brief respite from my day when it comes on.

He passes into the beyond, to the sadness of his family, friends, and fans. But, unlike people, music can be immortal, and so he lives on through his creations. Like, Bach, Lennon, Bowie, Joplin, Sousa, and too many others to count, his work – and the enjoyment we get from it – are a gift left behind for the future.

Tight lines, Jimmy.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m really going to miss Jimmy Buffett.

I’ve liked his music as far back as I can remember, and was lucky enough to see him in person in the mid-90s.

I’ve written about music before, but its affect on us never fails to amaze me. Songs can be background noise conducive to getting things done. They can also be in the foreground, serving as a mental vacation (or accompanying a real one). They can transport you to another place, briefly clearing your head from the daily goings-on around you. Even if it’s just during the drive home, it’s a welcome escape to a virtual beach and tropical drink.

Songs can bring back memories of certain events or people that we link them to. My dad loved anything by Neil Diamond, and nothing brings back thoughts of Dad more than when my iTunes randomly picks “I Am ... I Said.” Or John Williams’ Star Wars theme, taking me back to the summer of 1977 when I sat, spellbound, by this incredible movie whose magic is still going strong two generations later.

It’s amazing how our brain tries to make music out of nothing. Even in silence we have ear worms, the songs stuck in our head for hours to days (recently I’ve had “I Sing the Body Electric” from the 1980 movie Fame playing in there).

My office is over an MRI scanner, so I can always hear the chiller pumps softly running in the background. Sometimes my brain will turn their rhythmic chirping into a song, altering the pace of the song to fit them. The soft clicking of the ceiling fan, in my home office, does the same thing (for some reason my brain usually tries to fit “Yellow Submarine” to that one, no idea why).

Music is a part of that mysterious essence that makes us human. It touches all of us in some way, which varies between people, songs, and artists.

Jimmy Buffet’s music has a vacation vibe. Songs of the Caribbean & Keys, beaches, bars, boats, and tropical drinks. The 4:12 running time of his most well-known song, “Margaritaville,” gives a brief respite from my day when it comes on.

He passes into the beyond, to the sadness of his family, friends, and fans. But, unlike people, music can be immortal, and so he lives on through his creations. Like, Bach, Lennon, Bowie, Joplin, Sousa, and too many others to count, his work – and the enjoyment we get from it – are a gift left behind for the future.

Tight lines, Jimmy.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Several drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that are contraindicated during pregnancy nevertheless have not shown concerning safety signals in a series of small studies presented as posters at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. The industry-sponsored research included an assessment of pregnancy and infant outcomes for cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ozanimod, all of which are not recommended during pregnancy based primarily on minimal data that suggests, but does not confirm, possible teratogenicity.

“When these new medications hit the market, maternal-fetal medicine physicians and obstetricians are left with very scant data on how to counsel patients, and it’s often based on theory, case reports, or animal studies,” said Teodora Kolarova, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in any of the research. “Although these sample sizes seem small, the population they are sampling from – patients with MS who take immunomodulators who then experience a pregnancy – is much smaller than all pregnant patients.”

Taken together, the findings suggest no increased risk of miscarriage or congenital malformation, compared with baseline risk, Dr. Kolarova said.

“As a whole, these studies are overall reassuring with, of course, some caveats, including timing of medication exposure, limited sample size, and limited outcome data,” Dr. Kolarova said. She noted that embryonic organ formation is complete by 10 weeks gestation, by which time an unplanned pregnancy may not have been recognized yet. “In the subset of patients in the studies that were exposed during the first trimester, there was no increase in congenital malformations from a baseline risk of about 2%-3% in the general population, which is helpful for patient counseling.”
 

Counseling during the childbearing years

That kind of counseling is important yet absent for many people capable of pregnancy, suggests separate research also presented at the conference by Suma Shah, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Shah gave 13-question surveys to female MS patients of all ages at her institution and presented an analysis of data from 38 completed surveys. Among those taking disease-modifying therapies, their medications included ocrelizumab, rituximab, teriflunomide, fingolimod, fumarates, interferons, natalizumab, and cladribine.

“MS disproportionately impacts women among 20 to 40 years, and that’s a really big part of their childbearing years when there are big decisions being made about whether they’re going to choose to grow family or not,” said Dr. Shah. The average age of those who completed the survey was 44. Dr. Shah noted that a lot of research has looked at the safety of older disease-modifying agents in pregnancy, but that information doesn’t appear to be filtering down to patients. “What I really wanted to look at is what do our parent patients understand about whether or not they can even think about pregnancy – and there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Just under a third of survey respondents said they did not have as many children as they would like, and a quarter said they were told they couldn’t have children if they had a diagnosis of MS.

“That was a little heartbreaking to hear because that’s not the truth,” Dr. Shah said. She said it’s necessary to have a more detailed conversation looking at tailored decisions for patients. “Both of those things – patients not being able to grow their family to the number that they desire, and not feeling like they can grow a family – I would think in 2023 we would have come farther than that, and there’s still a lot of room there to improve.”

She advised clinicians not to assume that MS patients know what their options are regarding family planning. “There’s still a lot of room for conversations,” she said. She also explicitly recommends discussing family planning and pregnancy planning with every patient, no matter their gender, early and often.
 

Cladribine shows no miscarriage, malformations

Dr. Kolarova noted that one of the studies, on cladribine, had a fairly robust sample size with its 180 pregnancy exposures. In that study, led by Kerstin Hellwig, MD, of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, data came from the global surveillance program MAPLE-MS, established to assess cladribine effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from 76 mothers and 9 fathers who, at any time from 2017 to 2022, were taking cladribine during pregnancy or up to 6 months before pregnancy. Outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, elective abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and major congenital anomalies.

Just over half the mothers (53.9%) were exposed before pregnancy, and about a quarter (26.3%) were exposed during the first trimester. The timing was unknown for most of the other mothers (18.4%). Among the fathers, two-thirds (66.7%) were exposed before pregnancy, and one-third had unknown timing.

Among the 180 pregnancies in the maternal cohort, 42.2% had known outcomes. Nearly half the women (48.7%) taking cladribine had live births, 28.9% had elective abortions, and 21.1% had miscarriages. Only 9 of the 22 pregnancies in the paternal cohort had known outcomes, which included 88.9% live births and 11.1% miscarriages. None of the pregnancies resulted in stillbirth or in a live birth with major congenital anomalies.

”Robust conclusions cannot be made about the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes with cladribine tablets, but no increase has been signaled thus far,” the researchers reported. ”It is necessary to counsel patients to prevent pregnancy and to use effective contraception during cladribine tablets intake and for at least 6 months after the last cladribine tablet intake in each treatment year.”

Emily Evans, MD, MBE, medical director at U.S. Neurology and Immunology in Rockland, Mass., speaking on behalf of the findings, said they were fairly encouraging.

“Of course, we don’t encourage patients to get pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets,” Dr. Evans said, but “within those individuals who have gotten pregnant within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine, or who have fathered a child within 6 months of their last dose of cladribine tablets, we’re seeing overall encouraging outcomes. We’re specifically not seeing any differences in the rates of spontaneous abortions, and we’re not seeing any differences in the rates of congenital malformations.”
 

Ocrelizumab and ofatumumab: No infections so far

Current recommendations for ocrelizumab are to avoid pregnancy for 6 months after the last infusion and stop any breastfeeding during therapy. Yet these recommendations are only because of insufficient data rather than evidence of risk, according to Lana Zhovtis Ryerson, MD, of the NYU Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center in New York. She and her colleagues identified all women of childbearing age who had received ocrelizumab within 1 year of pregnancy at their NYU institution. A retrospective chart review found 18 women, with an average age of 35, an average 11 years of an MS diagnosis, and an average 11 months taking ocrelizumab.

Among the 18 pregnancies, four women had a first trimester miscarriage, one had a second trimester miscarriage, and one had an abortion. The miscarriage rate could have been partly influenced by the older maternal population, the authors noted. Of the remaining 12 live births, one infant was premature at 34 weeks, and three infants stayed in NICU but were discharged within 2 weeks.

One patient experienced an MS relapse postpartum, despite receiving ocrelizumab within 45 days of delivery. Of the 16 women who agreed to participate in a Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) developed by the CDC, two women chose to breastfeed, and seven said their neurologist recommended against breastfeeding. None of the children’s pediatricians advised delaying vaccinations.

“This small sample observational study has not identified a potential additional risk with ocrelizumab for an adverse pregnancy outcome,” the authors concluded, but they added that ongoing studies, MINORE and SOPRANINO, can help guide future recommendations.

Though still limited, slightly more data exists on ofatumumab during pregnancy, including transient B-cell depletion and lymphopenia in infants whose mothers received anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. However, research has found minimal IgG transfer in the first trimester, though it begins rising in the second trimester, and in utero ofatumumab exposure did not lead to any maternal toxicity or adverse prenatal or postnatal developmental effects in cynomolgus monkeys.

Riley Love, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, and her colleagues both prospectively and retrospectively examined pregnancy and infant outcomes for up to 1 year post partum in women with MS who took ofatumumab during pregnancy or in the 6 months leading up to pregnancy. Their population included 104 prospective cases, most of which (84%) included first trimester exposure, and 14 retrospective cases. One in five of the prospective cases occurred during a clinical trial, while the remaining 80% occurred in postmarketing surveillance.

The prospectively followed women were an average 32 years old and were an average 7 weeks pregnant at the time of reporting. Among the 106 fetuses (including two twin pregnancies), only 30 outcomes had data at the cutoff time, including 16 live births, 9 abortions, and 5 miscarriages. None of the live births had congenital anomalies or serious infections. Another 30 pregnancies were lost to follow-up, and 46 were ongoing.

In the 14 retrospective cases, 57% of women were exposed in the first trimester, and 43% were exposed leading up to pregnancy. Half the cases occurred during clinical trials, and half in postmarketing surveillance. The women were an average 32 years old and were an average 10 weeks pregnant at reporting. Among the 14 pregnancies, nine were miscarriages, one was aborted, and four were born live with no congenital anomalies.

The authors did not draw any conclusions from the findings; they cited too little data and an ongoing study by Novartis to investigate ofatumumab in pregnancy.

“Therapies such as ofatumumab and ocrelizumab can lead to increased risk of infection due to transient B-cell depletion in neonates, but the two studies looking at this did not demonstrate increased infectious morbidity for these infants,” Dr. Kolarova said. “As with all poster presentations, I look forward to reading the full papers once they are published as they will often include a lot more detail about when during pregnancy medication exposure occurred and more detailed outcome data that was assessed.”
 

Ozanimod outcomes within general population’s ‘expected ranges’

The final study looked at outcomes of pregnancies in people taking ozanimod and in the partners of people taking ozanimod in a clinical trial setting. The findings show low rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies that the authors concluded were within the typical range expected for the general population.

“While pregnancy should be avoided when taking and for 3 months after stopping ozanimod to allow for drug elimination, there is no evidence to date of increased occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with ozanimod exposure during early pregnancy,” wrote Anthony Krakovich, of Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, N.J., and his associates.

Ozanimod is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor 1 and 5 modulator whose therapeutic mechanism is not fully understood “but may involve the reduction of lymphocyte migration into the central nervous system and intestine,” the authors wrote. S1P receptors are involved in vascular formation during embryogenesis, and animal studies in rats and rabbits have shown toxicity to the embryo and fetus from S1P receptor modulators, including death and malformations. S1P receptor modulator labels therefore note potential fetal risk and the need for effective contraception while taking the drug.

The study prospectively tracked clinical trial participants taking ozanimod as healthy volunteers or for relapsing MS, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease. Most of the participants who became pregnant (73%) had relapsing MS, while 18% had ulcerative colitis and 8% had Crohn’s disease.

In female patients receiving ozanimod, 78 pregnancies resulted in 12 miscarriages (including one twin), 15 abortions, and 42 live births, with 6 pregnancies ongoing at the time of reporting and no data available for the remaining 4 pregnancies. Among the 42 live births, 4 were premature but otherwise healthy, 1 had a duplex kidney, and the other 37 infants were typical with no apparent health concerns. These rates of miscarriage, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies were within the expected ranges for the general population, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also assessed pregnancy outcomes for partners of male participants taking ozanimod. The 29 partner pregnancies resulted in 21 live births and one miscarriage, with one pregnancy ongoing and no information available for the other seven. The live births included 5 premature infants (including twins), 13 typical and healthy infants, 1 with Hirschsprung’s disease, 1 with a congenital hydrocele, and 1 with a partial atrioventricular septal defect. Again, the researchers concluded that these rates were within the typical range for the general population and that “no teratogenicity was observed.”

“We often encourage patients with MS, regardless of disease activity and therapies, to seek preconception evaluations with Maternal-Fetal Medicine and their neurologists in order to make plans for pregnancy and postpartum care,” Dr. Kolarova said. “That being said, access to subspecialized health care is not available to all, and pregnancy prior to such consultation does occur. These studies provide novel information that we have not had access to in the past and can improve patient counseling regarding their risks and options.”

The study on cladribine was funded by Merck KGaA, at which two authors are employed. Dr. Hellwig reported consulting, speaker, and/or research support from Bayer, Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Schering Healthcare, Serono, and Merck, and one author is a former employee of EMD Serono. The study on ocrelizumab was funded by Genentech. Dr. Zhovtis Ryerson reported personal fees from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis, and research grants from Biogen, Genentech, and CMSC. The other authors had no disclosures. The study on ofatumumab was funded by Novartis. Dr. Bove has received research funds from Biogen, Novartis, and Roche Genentech, and consulting fees from EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics; she has an ownership interest in Global Consult MD. Five authors are Novartis employees. Her coauthors, including Dr. Hellwig, reported advisory, consulting, research, speaking, or traveling fees from Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene BMS, EMD Serono, Horizon, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Schering Healthcare, Teva, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis. The study on ozanimod was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Krakovich and another author are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors reported consulting, speaking, advisory board, and/or research fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelhei, Celgene, Celltrion, EXCEMED, Falk Benelux, Ferring, Forward Pharma, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Synthon, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kolarova had no disclosures. Dr. Shah has received research support from Biogen and VeraSci.
 

An alarming gap bedevils menopause care in the United States – thanks to enduring myths about hormone replacement therapy and flaws in how new doctors are trained. The result: Countless women grapple with the physical and emotional toll of this life transition.

These shortcomings have led to an influx of doctors moving from traditional practice to virtual startups that focus on women’s health issues, treating patients who come to them desperate and frustrated after years of unresolved issues.

The solution is often so simple it is almost maddening, specialists say: vaginal creams containing low-dose estrogen which can address the symptoms of menopause, from vaginal dryness to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

“Hands down, this is one of the most meaningful interventions I’ve ever offered to a patient and yet it is underutilized,” said Ashley Winter, MD, chief medical officer and urologist at Odela Health, a digital women’s health clinic. “A lot of companies are blossoming in this menopause space because it is underserved by traditional health care – your gynecologist typically deals with reproduction, and typically when women are done with child-bearing, they’re kind of discharged from the care of their gynecologist.”

More than 1 million women in the United States go through menopause each year. According to a 2022 survey, 4 in 10 women report menopause symptoms that have been disruptive enough to interfere with their work performance on at least a weekly basis. 

And yet, many women are not getting appropriate treatment.

Partially to blame is the harmful legacy of faulty data, doctors say. The early results of the federally funded Women’s Health Initiative, released in 2002, showed that hormone therapy (HT) led to increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, and breast cancer. But further analysis showed the opposite: Hormonal therapies have a helpful effect on cardiovascular and bone health and generally reduce risk of death in younger women or those in the early postmenopausal period.

Hormone therapy delivers estrogen, sometimes with progesterone, to the body through gels, creams, patches, pills, suppositories, or a device fitted inside the uterus. Systemic HT sends hormones into the bloodstream, while local HT – like vaginal estrogen cream – specifically treats vaginal symptoms of menopause. 

Myths about the health risks linked to systemic and topical HT have long been debunked, and research on topical HT in particular shows it poses no risk for cancer or other chronic diseases. 

Yet while 2 decades have passed since the misinformation first started to spread, people remain woefully uninformed about hormone treatments. 

The FDA still requires that estrogen products carry a black-box warning on the early data, even though it has since been proven false. 

“This is one of the most damaging PR misadventures of modern medicine in my opinion,” Dr. Winter said. “It has literally killed women, and it’s made them miserable.”

The public has a glaring lack of knowledge about menopause management, said Stephanie Faubion, MD, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health.

Pegasus Health Justice Center

UCLA

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

An alarming gap bedevils menopause care in the United States – thanks to enduring myths about hormone replacement therapy and flaws in how new doctors are trained. The result: Countless women grapple with the physical and emotional toll of this life transition.

These shortcomings have led to an influx of doctors moving from traditional practice to virtual startups that focus on women’s health issues, treating patients who come to them desperate and frustrated after years of unresolved issues.

The solution is often so simple it is almost maddening, specialists say: vaginal creams containing low-dose estrogen which can address the symptoms of menopause, from vaginal dryness to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

“Hands down, this is one of the most meaningful interventions I’ve ever offered to a patient and yet it is underutilized,” said Ashley Winter, MD, chief medical officer and urologist at Odela Health, a digital women’s health clinic. “A lot of companies are blossoming in this menopause space because it is underserved by traditional health care – your gynecologist typically deals with reproduction, and typically when women are done with child-bearing, they’re kind of discharged from the care of their gynecologist.”

More than 1 million women in the United States go through menopause each year. According to a 2022 survey, 4 in 10 women report menopause symptoms that have been disruptive enough to interfere with their work performance on at least a weekly basis. 

And yet, many women are not getting appropriate treatment.

Partially to blame is the harmful legacy of faulty data, doctors say. The early results of the federally funded Women’s Health Initiative, released in 2002, showed that hormone therapy (HT) led to increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, and breast cancer. But further analysis showed the opposite: Hormonal therapies have a helpful effect on cardiovascular and bone health and generally reduce risk of death in younger women or those in the early postmenopausal period.

Hormone therapy delivers estrogen, sometimes with progesterone, to the body through gels, creams, patches, pills, suppositories, or a device fitted inside the uterus. Systemic HT sends hormones into the bloodstream, while local HT – like vaginal estrogen cream – specifically treats vaginal symptoms of menopause. 

Myths about the health risks linked to systemic and topical HT have long been debunked, and research on topical HT in particular shows it poses no risk for cancer or other chronic diseases. 

Yet while 2 decades have passed since the misinformation first started to spread, people remain woefully uninformed about hormone treatments. 

The FDA still requires that estrogen products carry a black-box warning on the early data, even though it has since been proven false. 

“This is one of the most damaging PR misadventures of modern medicine in my opinion,” Dr. Winter said. “It has literally killed women, and it’s made them miserable.”

The public has a glaring lack of knowledge about menopause management, said Stephanie Faubion, MD, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health.

Pegasus Health Justice Center

UCLA

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

An alarming gap bedevils menopause care in the United States – thanks to enduring myths about hormone replacement therapy and flaws in how new doctors are trained. The result: Countless women grapple with the physical and emotional toll of this life transition.

These shortcomings have led to an influx of doctors moving from traditional practice to virtual startups that focus on women’s health issues, treating patients who come to them desperate and frustrated after years of unresolved issues.

The solution is often so simple it is almost maddening, specialists say: vaginal creams containing low-dose estrogen which can address the symptoms of menopause, from vaginal dryness to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

“Hands down, this is one of the most meaningful interventions I’ve ever offered to a patient and yet it is underutilized,” said Ashley Winter, MD, chief medical officer and urologist at Odela Health, a digital women’s health clinic. “A lot of companies are blossoming in this menopause space because it is underserved by traditional health care – your gynecologist typically deals with reproduction, and typically when women are done with child-bearing, they’re kind of discharged from the care of their gynecologist.”

More than 1 million women in the United States go through menopause each year. According to a 2022 survey, 4 in 10 women report menopause symptoms that have been disruptive enough to interfere with their work performance on at least a weekly basis. 

And yet, many women are not getting appropriate treatment.

Partially to blame is the harmful legacy of faulty data, doctors say. The early results of the federally funded Women’s Health Initiative, released in 2002, showed that hormone therapy (HT) led to increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, and breast cancer. But further analysis showed the opposite: Hormonal therapies have a helpful effect on cardiovascular and bone health and generally reduce risk of death in younger women or those in the early postmenopausal period.

Hormone therapy delivers estrogen, sometimes with progesterone, to the body through gels, creams, patches, pills, suppositories, or a device fitted inside the uterus. Systemic HT sends hormones into the bloodstream, while local HT – like vaginal estrogen cream – specifically treats vaginal symptoms of menopause. 

Myths about the health risks linked to systemic and topical HT have long been debunked, and research on topical HT in particular shows it poses no risk for cancer or other chronic diseases. 

Yet while 2 decades have passed since the misinformation first started to spread, people remain woefully uninformed about hormone treatments. 

The FDA still requires that estrogen products carry a black-box warning on the early data, even though it has since been proven false. 

“This is one of the most damaging PR misadventures of modern medicine in my opinion,” Dr. Winter said. “It has literally killed women, and it’s made them miserable.”

The public has a glaring lack of knowledge about menopause management, said Stephanie Faubion, MD, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health.

Pegasus Health Justice Center

UCLA

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. It’s a case of internal decapitation that has generated a lot of news around the world because it happened to a young boy. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.

Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.

Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?

Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.

Hadassah Medical Center

Hadassah Medical Center

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. It’s a case of internal decapitation that has generated a lot of news around the world because it happened to a young boy. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.

Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.

Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?

Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.

Hadassah Medical Center

Hadassah Medical Center

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. It’s a case of internal decapitation that has generated a lot of news around the world because it happened to a young boy. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.

Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.

Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?

Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.

Hadassah Medical Center

Hadassah Medical Center

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

I was probably about 9 or 10 and I am assuming it was early winter when my mother took me aside and said in her usual quiet tone, “Willy, don’t ever stick your tongue on a metal pipe when it is cold outside.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I was probably about 9 or 10 and I am assuming it was early winter when my mother took me aside and said in her usual quiet tone, “Willy, don’t ever stick your tongue on a metal pipe when it is cold outside.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I was probably about 9 or 10 and I am assuming it was early winter when my mother took me aside and said in her usual quiet tone, “Willy, don’t ever stick your tongue on a metal pipe when it is cold outside.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Although most physicians have gotten used to working with EHRs, despite their irritations, the use of EHRs has contributed to a growing number of malpractice lawsuits. Defense attorneys say that doctors need to be increasingly careful of their EHR interactions in order to protect their patients – and themselves – against legal action.

According to a study in the Journal of Patient Safety, more than 30% of all EHR-related malpractice cases are associated with medication errors; 28% with diagnosis; and 31% with a complication of treatment, such as entering wrong information, entering information in the wrong place, and overlooking EHR flags and warnings for interactions or contraindications.

The study gave these examples of EHR-related errors that led to patient harm and ultimately to malpractice lawsuits:

• A discharge order omitted a patient’s medication that prevented strokes; the patient had a stroke days later.
• An electronic order for morphine failed to state the upper dose limit; the patient died.
• A physician meant to click on “discontinue” for an anticoagulant but mistakenly clicked on “continue” for home use.

Catching potential issues such as drug interactions or critical medical history that should inform treatment is more important than ever. “We know from safety engineering principles that just relying on vigilance is not a long-term safety strategy,” says Aaron Zach Hettinger, MD, chief research information officer at MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, D.C. “So, it’s critical that we design these safe systems and leverage the data that’s in them.”

Here are five smart EHR practices to help protect your patients’ health and your own liability.
 

1. Double-check dropdown boxes

When it comes to user error, it’s easy to click the wrong choice from a drop-down menu. Better to take the time to explain your answer in a box, even if it takes a few more minutes. Or if you are choosing from a menu, proofread any information it auto-fills in the chart.

Dr. Hettinger says you can strike a balance between these templated approaches to diagnosis and long-term care by working with third-party systems and your organization or vendor IT department to help with follow-up questions to keep populated data in check.

“Make sure you have a back-end system that can help monitor that structured data,” says Dr. Hettinger. Structured data are the patient’s demographic information, like name, address, age, height, weight, vital signs, and data elements like diagnosis, medications, and lab results. “Wherever you can leverage the underlying tools that are part of the electronic health record to make sure that we’re constantly checking the right results, that helps reduce the workload so that clinicians can focus on taking care of the patients and doing the right thing and not be as focused on entering data into the system.”
 

2. Supplement EHR notes with direct communication

The failure to diagnose cancer because one physician doesn’t know what another physician saw in an imaging report is one of the most common claims in the cases he tries, says Aaron Boeder, a plaintiff’s medical negligence lawyer in Chicago.

Physicians often assume that if they put a note in the electronic chart, others will look for it, but Mr. Boeder says it’s far more prudent to communicate directly.

“Let’s say a radiologist interprets a scan and sees what might be cancer,” he says. “If the ordering doctor is an orthopedist who’s ordered a CT scan for DVT, there’s going to be a report for that scan. It’s going to get auto-populated back into that physician’s note,” says Mr. Boeder.

The physician may or may not look at it, but it will be in their note, and they’re supposed to follow up on it because they ordered the scan. “But they may not follow up on it, and they may not get a call from the radiologist,” he says.

“Next thing you know, 2 or 3 years later, that patient is diagnosed with very advanced cancer.”
 

3. Tailor auto-fill information to your common practices

Suppose, as a physician, you find that you need to change a default setting time and time again. Dr. Hettinger says it’s worth your time to take an extra couple of minutes to work with your vendor or your health system to try and make changes to auto-population settings that align with your practices.

“Let’s say a default dose of 20 milligrams of a medication is what automatically pops up, but in reality, your practice is to use a smaller dose because it’s safer, even though they’re all within the acceptable realm of what you would order,” he says. “Rather than have the default to the higher dose, see if you can change the default to a lower dose. And that way, you don’t have to catch yourself every time.”

If your auto-fills are amounts that constantly need changing, an interruption could easily knock you off course before you make that correction.

“If there are ways to have the system defaults be safer or more in line with your clinical practice, and especially across a group, then you’re designing a safer system and not relying on vigilance or memory prone to interruptions,” says Dr. Hettinger.
 

4. Curb the copy and paste

It’s tempting to copy a note from a previous patient visit and make only minimal changes as needed, but you risk including outdated information if you do. Even if you’re repeating questions asked by the intake nurse, it is safer to not to rely on that information, says Beth Kanik, a defense medical malpractice attorney in Atlanta.

“If it later goes into litigation, the argument then becomes that it looks like you didn’t do your job,” says Ms. Kanik. “Instead, try to ask questions in a way that would elicit responses that may be a little different than what the nurse got, so that it’s clear you asked the questions and didn’t just simply rely upon someone else’s information.”
 

5. Separate typing from listening

While EHR may be an excellent tool for data collection and safety checking, it’s not a stand-in for doctor-patient interaction. As technology practices push medicine toward more and more efficiency, Mr. Boeder says it’s most often listening over all else that makes the difference in the quality of care. And good listening requires full attention.

“A real concern for physicians is the number of visits they’re expected to accomplish in a set amount of time,” says Mr. Boeder. “Often this translates into a doctor talking to a patient while typing notes or while reading a note from the last time the patient was in.”

Taking the time to pause after entering data and briefly reviewing your understanding of what your patient has told you can be invaluable and may save you – and your patient – problems later.

“In so many cases, it comes down to people not being heard,” says Mr. Boeder. “So listen to what your patients are saying.”

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

Although most physicians have gotten used to working with EHRs, despite their irritations, the use of EHRs has contributed to a growing number of malpractice lawsuits. Defense attorneys say that doctors need to be increasingly careful of their EHR interactions in order to protect their patients – and themselves – against legal action.

According to a study in the Journal of Patient Safety, more than 30% of all EHR-related malpractice cases are associated with medication errors; 28% with diagnosis; and 31% with a complication of treatment, such as entering wrong information, entering information in the wrong place, and overlooking EHR flags and warnings for interactions or contraindications.

The study gave these examples of EHR-related errors that led to patient harm and ultimately to malpractice lawsuits:

• A discharge order omitted a patient’s medication that prevented strokes; the patient had a stroke days later.
• An electronic order for morphine failed to state the upper dose limit; the patient died.
• A physician meant to click on “discontinue” for an anticoagulant but mistakenly clicked on “continue” for home use.

Catching potential issues such as drug interactions or critical medical history that should inform treatment is more important than ever. “We know from safety engineering principles that just relying on vigilance is not a long-term safety strategy,” says Aaron Zach Hettinger, MD, chief research information officer at MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, D.C. “So, it’s critical that we design these safe systems and leverage the data that’s in them.”

Here are five smart EHR practices to help protect your patients’ health and your own liability.
 

1. Double-check dropdown boxes

When it comes to user error, it’s easy to click the wrong choice from a drop-down menu. Better to take the time to explain your answer in a box, even if it takes a few more minutes. Or if you are choosing from a menu, proofread any information it auto-fills in the chart.

Dr. Hettinger says you can strike a balance between these templated approaches to diagnosis and long-term care by working with third-party systems and your organization or vendor IT department to help with follow-up questions to keep populated data in check.

“Make sure you have a back-end system that can help monitor that structured data,” says Dr. Hettinger. Structured data are the patient’s demographic information, like name, address, age, height, weight, vital signs, and data elements like diagnosis, medications, and lab results. “Wherever you can leverage the underlying tools that are part of the electronic health record to make sure that we’re constantly checking the right results, that helps reduce the workload so that clinicians can focus on taking care of the patients and doing the right thing and not be as focused on entering data into the system.”
 

2. Supplement EHR notes with direct communication

The failure to diagnose cancer because one physician doesn’t know what another physician saw in an imaging report is one of the most common claims in the cases he tries, says Aaron Boeder, a plaintiff’s medical negligence lawyer in Chicago.

Physicians often assume that if they put a note in the electronic chart, others will look for it, but Mr. Boeder says it’s far more prudent to communicate directly.

“Let’s say a radiologist interprets a scan and sees what might be cancer,” he says. “If the ordering doctor is an orthopedist who’s ordered a CT scan for DVT, there’s going to be a report for that scan. It’s going to get auto-populated back into that physician’s note,” says Mr. Boeder.

The physician may or may not look at it, but it will be in their note, and they’re supposed to follow up on it because they ordered the scan. “But they may not follow up on it, and they may not get a call from the radiologist,” he says.

“Next thing you know, 2 or 3 years later, that patient is diagnosed with very advanced cancer.”
 

3. Tailor auto-fill information to your common practices

Suppose, as a physician, you find that you need to change a default setting time and time again. Dr. Hettinger says it’s worth your time to take an extra couple of minutes to work with your vendor or your health system to try and make changes to auto-population settings that align with your practices.

“Let’s say a default dose of 20 milligrams of a medication is what automatically pops up, but in reality, your practice is to use a smaller dose because it’s safer, even though they’re all within the acceptable realm of what you would order,” he says. “Rather than have the default to the higher dose, see if you can change the default to a lower dose. And that way, you don’t have to catch yourself every time.”

If your auto-fills are amounts that constantly need changing, an interruption could easily knock you off course before you make that correction.

“If there are ways to have the system defaults be safer or more in line with your clinical practice, and especially across a group, then you’re designing a safer system and not relying on vigilance or memory prone to interruptions,” says Dr. Hettinger.
 

4. Curb the copy and paste

It’s tempting to copy a note from a previous patient visit and make only minimal changes as needed, but you risk including outdated information if you do. Even if you’re repeating questions asked by the intake nurse, it is safer to not to rely on that information, says Beth Kanik, a defense medical malpractice attorney in Atlanta.

“If it later goes into litigation, the argument then becomes that it looks like you didn’t do your job,” says Ms. Kanik. “Instead, try to ask questions in a way that would elicit responses that may be a little different than what the nurse got, so that it’s clear you asked the questions and didn’t just simply rely upon someone else’s information.”
 

5. Separate typing from listening

While EHR may be an excellent tool for data collection and safety checking, it’s not a stand-in for doctor-patient interaction. As technology practices push medicine toward more and more efficiency, Mr. Boeder says it’s most often listening over all else that makes the difference in the quality of care. And good listening requires full attention.

“A real concern for physicians is the number of visits they’re expected to accomplish in a set amount of time,” says Mr. Boeder. “Often this translates into a doctor talking to a patient while typing notes or while reading a note from the last time the patient was in.”

Taking the time to pause after entering data and briefly reviewing your understanding of what your patient has told you can be invaluable and may save you – and your patient – problems later.

“In so many cases, it comes down to people not being heard,” says Mr. Boeder. “So listen to what your patients are saying.”

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

Although most physicians have gotten used to working with EHRs, despite their irritations, the use of EHRs has contributed to a growing number of malpractice lawsuits. Defense attorneys say that doctors need to be increasingly careful of their EHR interactions in order to protect their patients – and themselves – against legal action.

According to a study in the Journal of Patient Safety, more than 30% of all EHR-related malpractice cases are associated with medication errors; 28% with diagnosis; and 31% with a complication of treatment, such as entering wrong information, entering information in the wrong place, and overlooking EHR flags and warnings for interactions or contraindications.

The study gave these examples of EHR-related errors that led to patient harm and ultimately to malpractice lawsuits:

• A discharge order omitted a patient’s medication that prevented strokes; the patient had a stroke days later.
• An electronic order for morphine failed to state the upper dose limit; the patient died.
• A physician meant to click on “discontinue” for an anticoagulant but mistakenly clicked on “continue” for home use.

Catching potential issues such as drug interactions or critical medical history that should inform treatment is more important than ever. “We know from safety engineering principles that just relying on vigilance is not a long-term safety strategy,” says Aaron Zach Hettinger, MD, chief research information officer at MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, D.C. “So, it’s critical that we design these safe systems and leverage the data that’s in them.”

Here are five smart EHR practices to help protect your patients’ health and your own liability.
 

1. Double-check dropdown boxes

When it comes to user error, it’s easy to click the wrong choice from a drop-down menu. Better to take the time to explain your answer in a box, even if it takes a few more minutes. Or if you are choosing from a menu, proofread any information it auto-fills in the chart.

Dr. Hettinger says you can strike a balance between these templated approaches to diagnosis and long-term care by working with third-party systems and your organization or vendor IT department to help with follow-up questions to keep populated data in check.

“Make sure you have a back-end system that can help monitor that structured data,” says Dr. Hettinger. Structured data are the patient’s demographic information, like name, address, age, height, weight, vital signs, and data elements like diagnosis, medications, and lab results. “Wherever you can leverage the underlying tools that are part of the electronic health record to make sure that we’re constantly checking the right results, that helps reduce the workload so that clinicians can focus on taking care of the patients and doing the right thing and not be as focused on entering data into the system.”
 

2. Supplement EHR notes with direct communication

The failure to diagnose cancer because one physician doesn’t know what another physician saw in an imaging report is one of the most common claims in the cases he tries, says Aaron Boeder, a plaintiff’s medical negligence lawyer in Chicago.

Physicians often assume that if they put a note in the electronic chart, others will look for it, but Mr. Boeder says it’s far more prudent to communicate directly.

“Let’s say a radiologist interprets a scan and sees what might be cancer,” he says. “If the ordering doctor is an orthopedist who’s ordered a CT scan for DVT, there’s going to be a report for that scan. It’s going to get auto-populated back into that physician’s note,” says Mr. Boeder.

The physician may or may not look at it, but it will be in their note, and they’re supposed to follow up on it because they ordered the scan. “But they may not follow up on it, and they may not get a call from the radiologist,” he says.

“Next thing you know, 2 or 3 years later, that patient is diagnosed with very advanced cancer.”
 

3. Tailor auto-fill information to your common practices

Suppose, as a physician, you find that you need to change a default setting time and time again. Dr. Hettinger says it’s worth your time to take an extra couple of minutes to work with your vendor or your health system to try and make changes to auto-population settings that align with your practices.

“Let’s say a default dose of 20 milligrams of a medication is what automatically pops up, but in reality, your practice is to use a smaller dose because it’s safer, even though they’re all within the acceptable realm of what you would order,” he says. “Rather than have the default to the higher dose, see if you can change the default to a lower dose. And that way, you don’t have to catch yourself every time.”

If your auto-fills are amounts that constantly need changing, an interruption could easily knock you off course before you make that correction.

“If there are ways to have the system defaults be safer or more in line with your clinical practice, and especially across a group, then you’re designing a safer system and not relying on vigilance or memory prone to interruptions,” says Dr. Hettinger.
 

4. Curb the copy and paste

It’s tempting to copy a note from a previous patient visit and make only minimal changes as needed, but you risk including outdated information if you do. Even if you’re repeating questions asked by the intake nurse, it is safer to not to rely on that information, says Beth Kanik, a defense medical malpractice attorney in Atlanta.

“If it later goes into litigation, the argument then becomes that it looks like you didn’t do your job,” says Ms. Kanik. “Instead, try to ask questions in a way that would elicit responses that may be a little different than what the nurse got, so that it’s clear you asked the questions and didn’t just simply rely upon someone else’s information.”
 

5. Separate typing from listening

While EHR may be an excellent tool for data collection and safety checking, it’s not a stand-in for doctor-patient interaction. As technology practices push medicine toward more and more efficiency, Mr. Boeder says it’s most often listening over all else that makes the difference in the quality of care. And good listening requires full attention.

“A real concern for physicians is the number of visits they’re expected to accomplish in a set amount of time,” says Mr. Boeder. “Often this translates into a doctor talking to a patient while typing notes or while reading a note from the last time the patient was in.”

Taking the time to pause after entering data and briefly reviewing your understanding of what your patient has told you can be invaluable and may save you – and your patient – problems later.

“In so many cases, it comes down to people not being heard,” says Mr. Boeder. “So listen to what your patients are saying.”

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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