Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

An Ohio physician pled guilty to charges that he prescribed opioids for nonmedical purposes and continued to prescribe to patients he knew had psychiatric and substance use disorders, admitting that he also engaged in sex with at least three patients in exchange for opioids.

Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.

Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.

Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.

The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.

In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.

Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.

Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.

Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.

The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.

Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.

The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.

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

Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.¹ With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.^2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.

In this paper, we share our personal experience with recruiting gastroenterology and hepatology fellows virtually, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.

After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.

When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.

It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.^4-9

Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.¹¹ Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.⁶ These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.

As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,¹² and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.

In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
 

Survey

A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?

1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program

2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program

3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well



B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?

1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless

2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation

3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation



C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?

1. Yes

2. Maybe, I am not sure

3. No



D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?

1. Virtual

2. In-person



E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?

1. Quite satisfied

2. Somewhat satisfied

3. Not at all satisfied



F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?

1. Yes

2. No



H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
 

I. Additional comments:
 

Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.

References

1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.

2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.

3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.

4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.

5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.

6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.

7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.

8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.

9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.

10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.

11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.

12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.

Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.¹ With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.^2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.

In this paper, we share our personal experience with recruiting gastroenterology and hepatology fellows virtually, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.

After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.

When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.

It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.^4-9

Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.¹¹ Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.⁶ These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.

As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,¹² and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.

In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
 

Survey

A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?

1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program

2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program

3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well



B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?

1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless

2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation

3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation



C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?

1. Yes

2. Maybe, I am not sure

3. No



D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?

1. Virtual

2. In-person



E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?

1. Quite satisfied

2. Somewhat satisfied

3. Not at all satisfied



F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?

1. Yes

2. No



H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
 

I. Additional comments:
 

Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.

References

1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.

2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.

3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.

4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.

5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.

6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.

7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.

8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.

9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.

10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.

11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.

12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.

Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.¹ With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.^2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.

In this paper, we share our personal experience with recruiting gastroenterology and hepatology fellows virtually, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.

After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.

When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.

It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.^4-9

Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.¹¹ Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.⁶ These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.

As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,¹² and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.

In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
 

Survey

A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?

1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program

2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program

3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well



B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?

1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless

2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation

3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation



C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?

1. Yes

2. Maybe, I am not sure

3. No



D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?

1. Virtual

2. In-person



E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?

1. Quite satisfied

2. Somewhat satisfied

3. Not at all satisfied



F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?

1. Yes

2. No



H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
 

I. Additional comments:
 

Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.

References

1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.

2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.

3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.

4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.

5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.

6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.

7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.

8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.

9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.

10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.

11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.

12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.

Clinical data have been published for a gene therapy for hemophilia A that is approaching the market – valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Hemophilia A (a deficiency of clotting Factor X) is the most common form of the disease, accounting for about 85% of patients.

The other type is hemophilia B (deficiency of clotting Factor VIII), and a gene therapy for this form of the disease has recently been launched – etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), at the enormous price tag of $3.5 million.

Both products are comprised of a one-off intravenous IV infusion that delivers a functional gene via an adeno-associated virus that instructs the body to make the missing clotting factor. The hope is that this one-off infusion will act as a ‘cure’ and that the individual will be freed from life-long prophylaxis and/or treatment.

The new clinical data on valoctocogene roxaparvovec, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that the beneficial effects from the gene are largely durable at 2 years, but they are anticipated to fade with time.

Two years after the one-time infusion, there remained “a significant reduction in the annualized bleeding rates” among 132 men who, at baseline, had severe hemophilia A requiring ongoing factor VIII prophylaxis, said the investigators, led by hematologist Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, MMed, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

However, the team predicted that median factor VIII activity would decrease below 10% of normal by year 3 or 5 depending on measurement technique, which would still translate to mild disease with an annualized bleeding rate of less than 1 episode per year.

“Although valoctocogene roxaparvovec may not eliminate bleeding, it potentially provides more consistent protection than factor VIII prophylaxis with less treatment burden,” the team said.
 

New questions

Data from the study “will directly inform therapeutic decision-making” in Europe, where valoctocogene roxaparvovec is already conditionally approved, and the United States, where it is awaiting approval by the FDA, says Lindsey George, MD, a hematologist and gene therapy specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

The study speaks to an ongoing concern about the durability of gene therapy for hemophilia but also raises new questions, she said.

For instance, while some patients had normal Factor VIII production and activity at 2 years, activity had dropped substantially in others, including in six men who resumed prophylaxis. “The cause of the decrease in factor VIII expression is an unanswered question,” and despite an anticipated U.S. price tag of around $2.5 million per treatment, “it is not possible [at the moment] to predict where an individual patient may fall within this range,” she writes.

Also, some subjects had elevations in liver aminotransferase levels that lasted for several months, including 2 years after infusion in 29% of subjects. Elevations in liver aminotransferase levels were treated with immune suppression for a median of 33 weeks.

“This is a unique finding with an undefined cause and long-term safety implications,” Dr. George said.

Getting to the bottom of such issues will be necessary for hemophilia gene therapy to fulfill its promise as “a one-time, lifelong, disease-ameliorating” fix for the condition, she asserted.
 

Study details

The new report followed up on the initial trial in 134 men who were treated with a single infusion of 6 × 1013 vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

Among the 132 subjects available for 2-year evaluation, median factor VIII activity was in the range of mild hemophilia (6%-49% of normal) with an 84.5% reduction in bleeding events from baseline. 

More than 80% of participants had no bleeding events requiring treatment, and there was a 98% reduction from baseline in mean use of exogenous factor VIII.  

Overall, at year 2, 4.5% of subjects had factor VIII activity consistent with severe hemophilia A; 9.1% had activity consistent with moderate disease; 59.8% had activity consistent with mild disease; and 26.5% had activity in the normal range above 40 IU/dL. The investigators estimated that the typical half-life of the transgene-derived factor VIII production system is 123 weeks.

Among the six men who resumed prophylaxis, most had fewer bleeding events than when they were on prophylaxis before the infusion, investigators noted.

All the subjects developed antibodies to the virus delivery vector, precluding retreatment.

The work was funded by valoctocogene roxaparvovec maker BioMarin Pharmaceuticals. Several investigators are employees. Others reported ties to BioMarin and other companies; Dr. Mahlangu, for instance, reported research grants from BioMarin, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and others. Dr. George reported a research grant from Asklepios Biopharmaceutical and having a patent licensed to the company. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

Clinical data have been published for a gene therapy for hemophilia A that is approaching the market – valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Hemophilia A (a deficiency of clotting Factor X) is the most common form of the disease, accounting for about 85% of patients.

The other type is hemophilia B (deficiency of clotting Factor VIII), and a gene therapy for this form of the disease has recently been launched – etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), at the enormous price tag of $3.5 million.

Both products are comprised of a one-off intravenous IV infusion that delivers a functional gene via an adeno-associated virus that instructs the body to make the missing clotting factor. The hope is that this one-off infusion will act as a ‘cure’ and that the individual will be freed from life-long prophylaxis and/or treatment.

The new clinical data on valoctocogene roxaparvovec, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that the beneficial effects from the gene are largely durable at 2 years, but they are anticipated to fade with time.

Two years after the one-time infusion, there remained “a significant reduction in the annualized bleeding rates” among 132 men who, at baseline, had severe hemophilia A requiring ongoing factor VIII prophylaxis, said the investigators, led by hematologist Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, MMed, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

However, the team predicted that median factor VIII activity would decrease below 10% of normal by year 3 or 5 depending on measurement technique, which would still translate to mild disease with an annualized bleeding rate of less than 1 episode per year.

“Although valoctocogene roxaparvovec may not eliminate bleeding, it potentially provides more consistent protection than factor VIII prophylaxis with less treatment burden,” the team said.
 

New questions

Data from the study “will directly inform therapeutic decision-making” in Europe, where valoctocogene roxaparvovec is already conditionally approved, and the United States, where it is awaiting approval by the FDA, says Lindsey George, MD, a hematologist and gene therapy specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

The study speaks to an ongoing concern about the durability of gene therapy for hemophilia but also raises new questions, she said.

For instance, while some patients had normal Factor VIII production and activity at 2 years, activity had dropped substantially in others, including in six men who resumed prophylaxis. “The cause of the decrease in factor VIII expression is an unanswered question,” and despite an anticipated U.S. price tag of around $2.5 million per treatment, “it is not possible [at the moment] to predict where an individual patient may fall within this range,” she writes.

Also, some subjects had elevations in liver aminotransferase levels that lasted for several months, including 2 years after infusion in 29% of subjects. Elevations in liver aminotransferase levels were treated with immune suppression for a median of 33 weeks.

“This is a unique finding with an undefined cause and long-term safety implications,” Dr. George said.

Getting to the bottom of such issues will be necessary for hemophilia gene therapy to fulfill its promise as “a one-time, lifelong, disease-ameliorating” fix for the condition, she asserted.
 

Study details

The new report followed up on the initial trial in 134 men who were treated with a single infusion of 6 × 1013 vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

Among the 132 subjects available for 2-year evaluation, median factor VIII activity was in the range of mild hemophilia (6%-49% of normal) with an 84.5% reduction in bleeding events from baseline. 

More than 80% of participants had no bleeding events requiring treatment, and there was a 98% reduction from baseline in mean use of exogenous factor VIII.  

Overall, at year 2, 4.5% of subjects had factor VIII activity consistent with severe hemophilia A; 9.1% had activity consistent with moderate disease; 59.8% had activity consistent with mild disease; and 26.5% had activity in the normal range above 40 IU/dL. The investigators estimated that the typical half-life of the transgene-derived factor VIII production system is 123 weeks.

Among the six men who resumed prophylaxis, most had fewer bleeding events than when they were on prophylaxis before the infusion, investigators noted.

All the subjects developed antibodies to the virus delivery vector, precluding retreatment.

The work was funded by valoctocogene roxaparvovec maker BioMarin Pharmaceuticals. Several investigators are employees. Others reported ties to BioMarin and other companies; Dr. Mahlangu, for instance, reported research grants from BioMarin, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and others. Dr. George reported a research grant from Asklepios Biopharmaceutical and having a patent licensed to the company. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

Clinical data have been published for a gene therapy for hemophilia A that is approaching the market – valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Hemophilia A (a deficiency of clotting Factor X) is the most common form of the disease, accounting for about 85% of patients.

The other type is hemophilia B (deficiency of clotting Factor VIII), and a gene therapy for this form of the disease has recently been launched – etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), at the enormous price tag of $3.5 million.

Both products are comprised of a one-off intravenous IV infusion that delivers a functional gene via an adeno-associated virus that instructs the body to make the missing clotting factor. The hope is that this one-off infusion will act as a ‘cure’ and that the individual will be freed from life-long prophylaxis and/or treatment.

The new clinical data on valoctocogene roxaparvovec, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that the beneficial effects from the gene are largely durable at 2 years, but they are anticipated to fade with time.

Two years after the one-time infusion, there remained “a significant reduction in the annualized bleeding rates” among 132 men who, at baseline, had severe hemophilia A requiring ongoing factor VIII prophylaxis, said the investigators, led by hematologist Johnny Mahlangu, MBBCh, MMed, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

However, the team predicted that median factor VIII activity would decrease below 10% of normal by year 3 or 5 depending on measurement technique, which would still translate to mild disease with an annualized bleeding rate of less than 1 episode per year.

“Although valoctocogene roxaparvovec may not eliminate bleeding, it potentially provides more consistent protection than factor VIII prophylaxis with less treatment burden,” the team said.
 

New questions

Data from the study “will directly inform therapeutic decision-making” in Europe, where valoctocogene roxaparvovec is already conditionally approved, and the United States, where it is awaiting approval by the FDA, says Lindsey George, MD, a hematologist and gene therapy specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

The study speaks to an ongoing concern about the durability of gene therapy for hemophilia but also raises new questions, she said.

For instance, while some patients had normal Factor VIII production and activity at 2 years, activity had dropped substantially in others, including in six men who resumed prophylaxis. “The cause of the decrease in factor VIII expression is an unanswered question,” and despite an anticipated U.S. price tag of around $2.5 million per treatment, “it is not possible [at the moment] to predict where an individual patient may fall within this range,” she writes.

Also, some subjects had elevations in liver aminotransferase levels that lasted for several months, including 2 years after infusion in 29% of subjects. Elevations in liver aminotransferase levels were treated with immune suppression for a median of 33 weeks.

“This is a unique finding with an undefined cause and long-term safety implications,” Dr. George said.

Getting to the bottom of such issues will be necessary for hemophilia gene therapy to fulfill its promise as “a one-time, lifelong, disease-ameliorating” fix for the condition, she asserted.
 

Study details

The new report followed up on the initial trial in 134 men who were treated with a single infusion of 6 × 1013 vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

Among the 132 subjects available for 2-year evaluation, median factor VIII activity was in the range of mild hemophilia (6%-49% of normal) with an 84.5% reduction in bleeding events from baseline. 

More than 80% of participants had no bleeding events requiring treatment, and there was a 98% reduction from baseline in mean use of exogenous factor VIII.  

Overall, at year 2, 4.5% of subjects had factor VIII activity consistent with severe hemophilia A; 9.1% had activity consistent with moderate disease; 59.8% had activity consistent with mild disease; and 26.5% had activity in the normal range above 40 IU/dL. The investigators estimated that the typical half-life of the transgene-derived factor VIII production system is 123 weeks.

Among the six men who resumed prophylaxis, most had fewer bleeding events than when they were on prophylaxis before the infusion, investigators noted.

All the subjects developed antibodies to the virus delivery vector, precluding retreatment.

The work was funded by valoctocogene roxaparvovec maker BioMarin Pharmaceuticals. Several investigators are employees. Others reported ties to BioMarin and other companies; Dr. Mahlangu, for instance, reported research grants from BioMarin, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and others. Dr. George reported a research grant from Asklepios Biopharmaceutical and having a patent licensed to the company. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

An investigational, once-weekly prophylactic treatment provided “superior bleeding prevention” as well as normal or near-normal factor VIII activity in patients with severe hemophilia A, according to a recent phase 3 study.

One injection of efanesoctocog alfa, a factor VIII therapy, resolved almost all bleeding episodes (97%) in the overall patient population, and weekly prophylaxis provided mean factor VIII activity in the normal or near-normal range (> 40 IU/dL) for most of the week.

Efanesoctocog alfa is currently under priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the target action date for the approval decision was set for Tuesday, February 28.

“Currently, [patients] often need to make trade-offs between bleed protection and dosing frequency,” study researcher Angela Weyand, MD, of Michigan Medicine, said in a press release. The current phase 3 XTEND-1 results assessing efanesoctocog alfa demonstrate that “we have the opportunity to provide near normal factor activity levels for an extended period of time (the majority of a week) with a single dose, which is a first for hemophilia A.”

According to the researchers, efanesoctocog alfa is also the first investigational treatment for hemophilia A to surpass the von Willebrand factor half-life ceiling, which imposes a half-life limitation on current factor VIII therapies.

The study, which was funded by drugmakers Sanofi and Sobi, was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Hemophilia A is a rare genetic disorder caused by a lack of blood clotting factor VIII. Normalizing factor VIII levels can help protect patients from spontaneous and traumatic bleeding but maintaining factor VIII levels in the normal (50-150 IU/dL) or close-to-normal range (> 40 to < 50 IU/dL) with currently available factor VIII therapies requires frequent administration, the study authors explained.

In the phase 3, open-label trial, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of efanesoctocog alfa for routine prophylaxis, treatment of bleeding episodes, and perioperative management in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with endogenous factor VIII activity of less than 1 IU/dL or a genotype known to produce severe hemophilia A. Patients were required to have had at least 150 previous exposure days to recombinant or plasma-derived factor VIII concentrates or cryoprecipitate.

Overall, 133 patients received once-weekly prophylaxis doses of 50 IU per kg of intravenous efanesoctocog alfa for 52 weeks (group A), and 26 patients received on-demand efanesoctocog alfa treatment for 26 weeks, followed by once-weekly prophylaxis with the medication for 26 weeks at the same 50 IU per kg dosage (group B). The primary endpoint was the mean annualized bleeding rate in group A.

Among those in group A, the annualized bleeding rate was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1.04) and the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate was 0.71. Overall, 65% of these patients (86 of 133) had no bleeding episodes and 93% had 0-2 bleeding episodes.

As for spontaneous bleeding, no episodes were reported in 80% of patients in group A (107 of 133) and 85% of patients (22 of 26) during the prophylaxis period in group B.

A total of 362 bleeding events occurred during the study, with most (268 of 362, or 74%) occurring in group B during the on-demand treatment period.

Among those in group A, switching from the prestudy standard of care to efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis reduced the mean annualized bleeding rate from 2.96 to 0.69, a decrease of 77%. In group B, the mean annualized bleeding rate also decreased when patients switched from on-demand efanesoctocog alfa to prophylaxis (21.42 vs. 0.69).

Scores of physical health, joint health, and pain intensity were significantly improved within the 52 weeks. In patients with target joints at baseline, 100% of the target joints were resolved after at least 12 months of continuous prophylaxis.

In other words, not only did the treatment stop bleeding, but efanesoctocog alfa also improved the overall quality of life for patients, said lead author Annette von Drygalski MD, PharmD, of the University of California, San Diego. 

“[Efanesoctocog] alfa’s half-life and clotting factor activity levels truly translated into a number of other patient outcomes,” Dr. von Drygalski told this news organization. “All these reductions in parameters, pain improvement, improvement in joint health, reduction in pain, and of course reduction of infusions really resulted in improved quality of life for most patients, and so that’s remarkable.”

In addition, no patients developed inhibitors to factor VIII and there were no reports of serious allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, or vascular thrombotic events.

Of the 159 patients who received at least one dose of efanesoctocog alfa, 123 (77%) had at least one adverse event that developed or worsened during the treatment period. The most common adverse events were headache, arthralgia, fall, and back pain.

In an accompanying editorial, Cindy Leissinger, MD, called efanesoctocog alfa a “victory” for patients with hemophilia A.

“In a crowded field of transformative therapies for hemophilia, efanesoctocog alfa stands out as a winner – a major therapeutic advance that achieves highly protective factor VIII levels with a once-weekly infusion,” writes Dr. Leissinger, director of the Louisiana Center for Bleeding and Clotting Disorders at Tulane University, New Orleans.

The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. Both Dr. von Drygalski and Dr. Leissinger disclosed serving as consultants for Sanofi, among other disclosures. Other authors provided a range of disclosures, including serving as consultants for Sanofi and Sobi.

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

An investigational, once-weekly prophylactic treatment provided “superior bleeding prevention” as well as normal or near-normal factor VIII activity in patients with severe hemophilia A, according to a recent phase 3 study.

One injection of efanesoctocog alfa, a factor VIII therapy, resolved almost all bleeding episodes (97%) in the overall patient population, and weekly prophylaxis provided mean factor VIII activity in the normal or near-normal range (> 40 IU/dL) for most of the week.

Efanesoctocog alfa is currently under priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the target action date for the approval decision was set for Tuesday, February 28.

“Currently, [patients] often need to make trade-offs between bleed protection and dosing frequency,” study researcher Angela Weyand, MD, of Michigan Medicine, said in a press release. The current phase 3 XTEND-1 results assessing efanesoctocog alfa demonstrate that “we have the opportunity to provide near normal factor activity levels for an extended period of time (the majority of a week) with a single dose, which is a first for hemophilia A.”

According to the researchers, efanesoctocog alfa is also the first investigational treatment for hemophilia A to surpass the von Willebrand factor half-life ceiling, which imposes a half-life limitation on current factor VIII therapies.

The study, which was funded by drugmakers Sanofi and Sobi, was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Hemophilia A is a rare genetic disorder caused by a lack of blood clotting factor VIII. Normalizing factor VIII levels can help protect patients from spontaneous and traumatic bleeding but maintaining factor VIII levels in the normal (50-150 IU/dL) or close-to-normal range (> 40 to < 50 IU/dL) with currently available factor VIII therapies requires frequent administration, the study authors explained.

In the phase 3, open-label trial, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of efanesoctocog alfa for routine prophylaxis, treatment of bleeding episodes, and perioperative management in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with endogenous factor VIII activity of less than 1 IU/dL or a genotype known to produce severe hemophilia A. Patients were required to have had at least 150 previous exposure days to recombinant or plasma-derived factor VIII concentrates or cryoprecipitate.

Overall, 133 patients received once-weekly prophylaxis doses of 50 IU per kg of intravenous efanesoctocog alfa for 52 weeks (group A), and 26 patients received on-demand efanesoctocog alfa treatment for 26 weeks, followed by once-weekly prophylaxis with the medication for 26 weeks at the same 50 IU per kg dosage (group B). The primary endpoint was the mean annualized bleeding rate in group A.

Among those in group A, the annualized bleeding rate was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1.04) and the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate was 0.71. Overall, 65% of these patients (86 of 133) had no bleeding episodes and 93% had 0-2 bleeding episodes.

As for spontaneous bleeding, no episodes were reported in 80% of patients in group A (107 of 133) and 85% of patients (22 of 26) during the prophylaxis period in group B.

A total of 362 bleeding events occurred during the study, with most (268 of 362, or 74%) occurring in group B during the on-demand treatment period.

Among those in group A, switching from the prestudy standard of care to efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis reduced the mean annualized bleeding rate from 2.96 to 0.69, a decrease of 77%. In group B, the mean annualized bleeding rate also decreased when patients switched from on-demand efanesoctocog alfa to prophylaxis (21.42 vs. 0.69).

Scores of physical health, joint health, and pain intensity were significantly improved within the 52 weeks. In patients with target joints at baseline, 100% of the target joints were resolved after at least 12 months of continuous prophylaxis.

In other words, not only did the treatment stop bleeding, but efanesoctocog alfa also improved the overall quality of life for patients, said lead author Annette von Drygalski MD, PharmD, of the University of California, San Diego. 

“[Efanesoctocog] alfa’s half-life and clotting factor activity levels truly translated into a number of other patient outcomes,” Dr. von Drygalski told this news organization. “All these reductions in parameters, pain improvement, improvement in joint health, reduction in pain, and of course reduction of infusions really resulted in improved quality of life for most patients, and so that’s remarkable.”

In addition, no patients developed inhibitors to factor VIII and there were no reports of serious allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, or vascular thrombotic events.

Of the 159 patients who received at least one dose of efanesoctocog alfa, 123 (77%) had at least one adverse event that developed or worsened during the treatment period. The most common adverse events were headache, arthralgia, fall, and back pain.

In an accompanying editorial, Cindy Leissinger, MD, called efanesoctocog alfa a “victory” for patients with hemophilia A.

“In a crowded field of transformative therapies for hemophilia, efanesoctocog alfa stands out as a winner – a major therapeutic advance that achieves highly protective factor VIII levels with a once-weekly infusion,” writes Dr. Leissinger, director of the Louisiana Center for Bleeding and Clotting Disorders at Tulane University, New Orleans.

The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. Both Dr. von Drygalski and Dr. Leissinger disclosed serving as consultants for Sanofi, among other disclosures. Other authors provided a range of disclosures, including serving as consultants for Sanofi and Sobi.

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

An investigational, once-weekly prophylactic treatment provided “superior bleeding prevention” as well as normal or near-normal factor VIII activity in patients with severe hemophilia A, according to a recent phase 3 study.

One injection of efanesoctocog alfa, a factor VIII therapy, resolved almost all bleeding episodes (97%) in the overall patient population, and weekly prophylaxis provided mean factor VIII activity in the normal or near-normal range (> 40 IU/dL) for most of the week.

Efanesoctocog alfa is currently under priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the target action date for the approval decision was set for Tuesday, February 28.

“Currently, [patients] often need to make trade-offs between bleed protection and dosing frequency,” study researcher Angela Weyand, MD, of Michigan Medicine, said in a press release. The current phase 3 XTEND-1 results assessing efanesoctocog alfa demonstrate that “we have the opportunity to provide near normal factor activity levels for an extended period of time (the majority of a week) with a single dose, which is a first for hemophilia A.”

According to the researchers, efanesoctocog alfa is also the first investigational treatment for hemophilia A to surpass the von Willebrand factor half-life ceiling, which imposes a half-life limitation on current factor VIII therapies.

The study, which was funded by drugmakers Sanofi and Sobi, was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Hemophilia A is a rare genetic disorder caused by a lack of blood clotting factor VIII. Normalizing factor VIII levels can help protect patients from spontaneous and traumatic bleeding but maintaining factor VIII levels in the normal (50-150 IU/dL) or close-to-normal range (> 40 to < 50 IU/dL) with currently available factor VIII therapies requires frequent administration, the study authors explained.

In the phase 3, open-label trial, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of efanesoctocog alfa for routine prophylaxis, treatment of bleeding episodes, and perioperative management in previously treated patients with severe hemophilia A.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with endogenous factor VIII activity of less than 1 IU/dL or a genotype known to produce severe hemophilia A. Patients were required to have had at least 150 previous exposure days to recombinant or plasma-derived factor VIII concentrates or cryoprecipitate.

Overall, 133 patients received once-weekly prophylaxis doses of 50 IU per kg of intravenous efanesoctocog alfa for 52 weeks (group A), and 26 patients received on-demand efanesoctocog alfa treatment for 26 weeks, followed by once-weekly prophylaxis with the medication for 26 weeks at the same 50 IU per kg dosage (group B). The primary endpoint was the mean annualized bleeding rate in group A.

Among those in group A, the annualized bleeding rate was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1.04) and the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate was 0.71. Overall, 65% of these patients (86 of 133) had no bleeding episodes and 93% had 0-2 bleeding episodes.

As for spontaneous bleeding, no episodes were reported in 80% of patients in group A (107 of 133) and 85% of patients (22 of 26) during the prophylaxis period in group B.

A total of 362 bleeding events occurred during the study, with most (268 of 362, or 74%) occurring in group B during the on-demand treatment period.

Among those in group A, switching from the prestudy standard of care to efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis reduced the mean annualized bleeding rate from 2.96 to 0.69, a decrease of 77%. In group B, the mean annualized bleeding rate also decreased when patients switched from on-demand efanesoctocog alfa to prophylaxis (21.42 vs. 0.69).

Scores of physical health, joint health, and pain intensity were significantly improved within the 52 weeks. In patients with target joints at baseline, 100% of the target joints were resolved after at least 12 months of continuous prophylaxis.

In other words, not only did the treatment stop bleeding, but efanesoctocog alfa also improved the overall quality of life for patients, said lead author Annette von Drygalski MD, PharmD, of the University of California, San Diego. 

“[Efanesoctocog] alfa’s half-life and clotting factor activity levels truly translated into a number of other patient outcomes,” Dr. von Drygalski told this news organization. “All these reductions in parameters, pain improvement, improvement in joint health, reduction in pain, and of course reduction of infusions really resulted in improved quality of life for most patients, and so that’s remarkable.”

In addition, no patients developed inhibitors to factor VIII and there were no reports of serious allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, or vascular thrombotic events.

Of the 159 patients who received at least one dose of efanesoctocog alfa, 123 (77%) had at least one adverse event that developed or worsened during the treatment period. The most common adverse events were headache, arthralgia, fall, and back pain.

In an accompanying editorial, Cindy Leissinger, MD, called efanesoctocog alfa a “victory” for patients with hemophilia A.

“In a crowded field of transformative therapies for hemophilia, efanesoctocog alfa stands out as a winner – a major therapeutic advance that achieves highly protective factor VIII levels with a once-weekly infusion,” writes Dr. Leissinger, director of the Louisiana Center for Bleeding and Clotting Disorders at Tulane University, New Orleans.

The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. Both Dr. von Drygalski and Dr. Leissinger disclosed serving as consultants for Sanofi, among other disclosures. Other authors provided a range of disclosures, including serving as consultants for Sanofi and Sobi.

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

The European Commission has granted conditional marketing authorization for etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first and only one-time gene therapy for the treatment of severe and moderately severe hemophilia B (congenital factor IX deficiency) in adults without a history of factor IX inhibitors.

The approval means that the product will now be available in all the countries of the European Union as well as the European Economic Area.

The gene therapy was approved in the United States in November 2022. It was launched with a price tag of $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date.

The treatment comprises a one-time infusion of a functional gene that acts as a blueprint for coagulation factor IX, a protein important for blood clotting, stated the manufacturer, CSL.

People living with hemophilia B currently require lifelong treatment of intravenous infusions of factor IX to maintain sufficient levels, which can have a significant impact on their quality of life and well-being, the company explained in its press release.

The approval was based on findings from the pivotal HOPE-B trial, a single-arm, open-label study of 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; first results from this trial were reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The results showed that patients with hemophilia B treated with the gene therapy demonstrated stable and durable increases in mean factor IX activity (with a mean factor IX activity of 36.9%), which led to an adjusted annualized bleeding rate reduction of 64%.

After receiving the gene therapy, 96% of patients discontinued routine factor IX prophylaxis and mean factor IX consumption was reduced by 97% at 18 months post treatment compared with the lead-in period, the company noted.

“Data from the HOPE-B study demonstrate the potential of Hemgenix to remove the need for routine prophylaxis by providing durable factor IX activity, as well as improved bleeding outcomes and quality of life for people with hemophilia B,” said one of the trialists, Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PHD, head of coagulation disorders at the Comprehensive Care Center, University Hospital of Frankfurt, Germany.

This European approval “marks an important step forward in the treatment of hemophilia B, which could be transformative for people who are debilitated by bleeds into their muscles, joints, and internal organs, alleviating the burden of lifelong intravenous infusions of factor IX products,” Dr. Miesbach said in the company press release.

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

The European Commission has granted conditional marketing authorization for etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first and only one-time gene therapy for the treatment of severe and moderately severe hemophilia B (congenital factor IX deficiency) in adults without a history of factor IX inhibitors.

The approval means that the product will now be available in all the countries of the European Union as well as the European Economic Area.

The gene therapy was approved in the United States in November 2022. It was launched with a price tag of $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date.

The treatment comprises a one-time infusion of a functional gene that acts as a blueprint for coagulation factor IX, a protein important for blood clotting, stated the manufacturer, CSL.

People living with hemophilia B currently require lifelong treatment of intravenous infusions of factor IX to maintain sufficient levels, which can have a significant impact on their quality of life and well-being, the company explained in its press release.

The approval was based on findings from the pivotal HOPE-B trial, a single-arm, open-label study of 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; first results from this trial were reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The results showed that patients with hemophilia B treated with the gene therapy demonstrated stable and durable increases in mean factor IX activity (with a mean factor IX activity of 36.9%), which led to an adjusted annualized bleeding rate reduction of 64%.

After receiving the gene therapy, 96% of patients discontinued routine factor IX prophylaxis and mean factor IX consumption was reduced by 97% at 18 months post treatment compared with the lead-in period, the company noted.

“Data from the HOPE-B study demonstrate the potential of Hemgenix to remove the need for routine prophylaxis by providing durable factor IX activity, as well as improved bleeding outcomes and quality of life for people with hemophilia B,” said one of the trialists, Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PHD, head of coagulation disorders at the Comprehensive Care Center, University Hospital of Frankfurt, Germany.

This European approval “marks an important step forward in the treatment of hemophilia B, which could be transformative for people who are debilitated by bleeds into their muscles, joints, and internal organs, alleviating the burden of lifelong intravenous infusions of factor IX products,” Dr. Miesbach said in the company press release.

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

The European Commission has granted conditional marketing authorization for etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), the first and only one-time gene therapy for the treatment of severe and moderately severe hemophilia B (congenital factor IX deficiency) in adults without a history of factor IX inhibitors.

The approval means that the product will now be available in all the countries of the European Union as well as the European Economic Area.

The gene therapy was approved in the United States in November 2022. It was launched with a price tag of $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date.

The treatment comprises a one-time infusion of a functional gene that acts as a blueprint for coagulation factor IX, a protein important for blood clotting, stated the manufacturer, CSL.

People living with hemophilia B currently require lifelong treatment of intravenous infusions of factor IX to maintain sufficient levels, which can have a significant impact on their quality of life and well-being, the company explained in its press release.

The approval was based on findings from the pivotal HOPE-B trial, a single-arm, open-label study of 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; first results from this trial were reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The results showed that patients with hemophilia B treated with the gene therapy demonstrated stable and durable increases in mean factor IX activity (with a mean factor IX activity of 36.9%), which led to an adjusted annualized bleeding rate reduction of 64%.

After receiving the gene therapy, 96% of patients discontinued routine factor IX prophylaxis and mean factor IX consumption was reduced by 97% at 18 months post treatment compared with the lead-in period, the company noted.

“Data from the HOPE-B study demonstrate the potential of Hemgenix to remove the need for routine prophylaxis by providing durable factor IX activity, as well as improved bleeding outcomes and quality of life for people with hemophilia B,” said one of the trialists, Wolfgang Miesbach, MD, PHD, head of coagulation disorders at the Comprehensive Care Center, University Hospital of Frankfurt, Germany.

This European approval “marks an important step forward in the treatment of hemophilia B, which could be transformative for people who are debilitated by bleeds into their muscles, joints, and internal organs, alleviating the burden of lifelong intravenous infusions of factor IX products,” Dr. Miesbach said in the company press release.

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

Drospirenone vs norethindrone progestin-only pills. Is there a clear winner?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (FEBRUARY 2022)

Contraception queries

Dr. Barbieri, addressing your editorial on drospirenone and norethindrone pills, can you tell me why there are 4 placebo pills in Slynd? In addition, why did Exeltis choose a 24/4 regimen instead of a continuous regimen? And are there data on bleeding patterns with continuous drospirenone versus 24/4?

Meredith S. Cassidy, MD

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Cassidy for the excellent question! The purpose of the 4 placebo pills in the Slynd (drospirenone 4 mg) 24/4 progestin-only contraceptive is to induce scheduled bleeding and reduce the number of days of unscheduled uterine bleeding. In a study of 858 patients, compared with a continuous progestin-only desogestrel contraceptive, Slynd with 4 placebo pills, was associated with significantly fewer days of unscheduled bleeding, 22 days versus 35 days (P<.0003) over 8 months of contraceptive use.¹

The norethindrone progestin-only pill (POP) , which is available in the United States has very weak anti-ovulatory properties. If there were 4 placebo pills in the norethindrone POP, ovulation rates would increase, leading to reduced contraceptive efficacy. In contrast, Slynd with 4 placebo pills has excellent anti-ovulatory efficacy.

Reference

1. Palacios S, Colli E, Regidor PA. Bleeding profile of women using a drospirenone-ony 4 mg over nine cycles in comparison with desogestrel 0.075 mg. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0231856.

Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (NOVEMBER 2022)

ERAS for all cesarean deliveries

In Dr. Barbieri’s editorial “Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?”, he and Dr. Schantz-Dunn outline several reasons why the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

I would suggest that ERAS principles should be used for all cesarean deliveries (CDs), not only scheduled ones. Many components of CD ERAS pathways are equally applicable to scheduled and unscheduled CDs, specifically those components that apply to intraoperative care (antibiotic prophylaxis, skin preparation, surgical technique, uterotonic administration, normothermia, and multimodal anesthesia) and postoperative care (VTE prophylaxis, gum chewing, early oral intake, early ambulation, early removal of bladder catheter, predischarge patient education, scheduled analgesic prophylaxis with acetaminophen, and NSAIDS). Although scheduled CDs have the additional advantage of the pre-hospital components (breastfeeding education, shortened fasting interval, carbohydrate loading, anemia prevention, and physiologic optimization), most of the benefit of ERAS for CD is likely attributable to the intraoperative and postoperative components.

For example, in our CD ERAS program, the median postoperative opioid consumption was reduced from a baseline of more than 100 morphine mg equivalents (MME) in both scheduled CDs (23 MME, interquartile range [IQR], 0-70) and unscheduled CDs (23 MME, IQR, 0-75).¹ Remarkably, 29% of patients in the ERAS pathway used no postoperative opioids at all, a testament to the efficacy of neuraxial morphine and postoperative acetaminophen and NSAIDS. In another program, ERAS was associated with decreased postpartum length of stay and reduced direct costs in both scheduled and unscheduled CDs.²

References

1. Combs CA, Robinson T, Mekis C, et al. Enhanced recovery after cesarean: impact on postoperative opioid use and length of stay. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:237-239.
2. Fay EE, Hitti JE, Delgado CM, et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for cesarean delivery decreases hospital stay and cost. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:349.e1-e9.

C. Andrew Combs, MD, PhD

Sunrise, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

I am grateful to Dr. Combs’ advocacy for applying ERAS principles to all CD births, including scheduled and unscheduled operations. Dr. Combs notes that the intraoperative and postoperative components of ERAS can be used for both scheduled and unscheduled CD births. Of particular note is the marked reduction in opioid medication use achieved among Dr. Combs’ patients who were on an ERAS pathway. Hopefully, due to Dr. Combs clinical and research leadership many more patients will benefit from the use of an ERAS pathway.

ObGyns united in a divided post-Dobbs America

ERIN TRACY BRADLEY, MD, MPH, AND MEGAN L. EVANS,MD, MPH (DECEMBER 2022)

ObGyns are not united on this issue

I just finished reading the article by Drs. Bradley and Evans in the December edition of OBG Management. I am an older ObGyn, and I remember when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations within our specialty were more circumspect when discussing abortion. They recognized that there were many practitioners who held sincere opinions regarding abortion, feeling that it was ending a sacred life. I am one of those practitioners. I have always felt that we, of all practitioners, should be aware of the reality of early fetal life. We scan patients every day. To see the unborn fetus in all its glory should indelibly impress on each of us that this is life.

The unborn seem not to have advocates like Drs. Bradley and Evans. In fact, those who hold pro-life opinions are regularly silenced in publications and on social media. The Facebooks and Twitters of the world tend to hold us in derision when they are not silencing us. There used to be a detente in our field where we each respected the viewpoint of the other, but now it is nonstop advocacy for abortion. Some authors want to accelerate and intensify that advocacy. I suspect that the pro-life views like mine will continue to be silenced. I just want the authors to know that we are not united in this post-Dobbs world. Many of us want appropriate limits on termination. We are not in favor of the unlimited right to abort a fetus up to the moment of delivery.

Steven G. Nelson

Phoenix, Arizona

Drospirenone vs norethindrone progestin-only pills. Is there a clear winner?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (FEBRUARY 2022)

Contraception queries

Dr. Barbieri, addressing your editorial on drospirenone and norethindrone pills, can you tell me why there are 4 placebo pills in Slynd? In addition, why did Exeltis choose a 24/4 regimen instead of a continuous regimen? And are there data on bleeding patterns with continuous drospirenone versus 24/4?

Meredith S. Cassidy, MD

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Cassidy for the excellent question! The purpose of the 4 placebo pills in the Slynd (drospirenone 4 mg) 24/4 progestin-only contraceptive is to induce scheduled bleeding and reduce the number of days of unscheduled uterine bleeding. In a study of 858 patients, compared with a continuous progestin-only desogestrel contraceptive, Slynd with 4 placebo pills, was associated with significantly fewer days of unscheduled bleeding, 22 days versus 35 days (P<.0003) over 8 months of contraceptive use.¹

The norethindrone progestin-only pill (POP) , which is available in the United States has very weak anti-ovulatory properties. If there were 4 placebo pills in the norethindrone POP, ovulation rates would increase, leading to reduced contraceptive efficacy. In contrast, Slynd with 4 placebo pills has excellent anti-ovulatory efficacy.

Reference

1. Palacios S, Colli E, Regidor PA. Bleeding profile of women using a drospirenone-ony 4 mg over nine cycles in comparison with desogestrel 0.075 mg. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0231856.

Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (NOVEMBER 2022)

ERAS for all cesarean deliveries

In Dr. Barbieri’s editorial “Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?”, he and Dr. Schantz-Dunn outline several reasons why the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

I would suggest that ERAS principles should be used for all cesarean deliveries (CDs), not only scheduled ones. Many components of CD ERAS pathways are equally applicable to scheduled and unscheduled CDs, specifically those components that apply to intraoperative care (antibiotic prophylaxis, skin preparation, surgical technique, uterotonic administration, normothermia, and multimodal anesthesia) and postoperative care (VTE prophylaxis, gum chewing, early oral intake, early ambulation, early removal of bladder catheter, predischarge patient education, scheduled analgesic prophylaxis with acetaminophen, and NSAIDS). Although scheduled CDs have the additional advantage of the pre-hospital components (breastfeeding education, shortened fasting interval, carbohydrate loading, anemia prevention, and physiologic optimization), most of the benefit of ERAS for CD is likely attributable to the intraoperative and postoperative components.

For example, in our CD ERAS program, the median postoperative opioid consumption was reduced from a baseline of more than 100 morphine mg equivalents (MME) in both scheduled CDs (23 MME, interquartile range [IQR], 0-70) and unscheduled CDs (23 MME, IQR, 0-75).¹ Remarkably, 29% of patients in the ERAS pathway used no postoperative opioids at all, a testament to the efficacy of neuraxial morphine and postoperative acetaminophen and NSAIDS. In another program, ERAS was associated with decreased postpartum length of stay and reduced direct costs in both scheduled and unscheduled CDs.²

References

1. Combs CA, Robinson T, Mekis C, et al. Enhanced recovery after cesarean: impact on postoperative opioid use and length of stay. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:237-239.
2. Fay EE, Hitti JE, Delgado CM, et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for cesarean delivery decreases hospital stay and cost. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:349.e1-e9.

C. Andrew Combs, MD, PhD

Sunrise, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

I am grateful to Dr. Combs’ advocacy for applying ERAS principles to all CD births, including scheduled and unscheduled operations. Dr. Combs notes that the intraoperative and postoperative components of ERAS can be used for both scheduled and unscheduled CD births. Of particular note is the marked reduction in opioid medication use achieved among Dr. Combs’ patients who were on an ERAS pathway. Hopefully, due to Dr. Combs clinical and research leadership many more patients will benefit from the use of an ERAS pathway.

ObGyns united in a divided post-Dobbs America

ERIN TRACY BRADLEY, MD, MPH, AND MEGAN L. EVANS,MD, MPH (DECEMBER 2022)

ObGyns are not united on this issue

I just finished reading the article by Drs. Bradley and Evans in the December edition of OBG Management. I am an older ObGyn, and I remember when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations within our specialty were more circumspect when discussing abortion. They recognized that there were many practitioners who held sincere opinions regarding abortion, feeling that it was ending a sacred life. I am one of those practitioners. I have always felt that we, of all practitioners, should be aware of the reality of early fetal life. We scan patients every day. To see the unborn fetus in all its glory should indelibly impress on each of us that this is life.

The unborn seem not to have advocates like Drs. Bradley and Evans. In fact, those who hold pro-life opinions are regularly silenced in publications and on social media. The Facebooks and Twitters of the world tend to hold us in derision when they are not silencing us. There used to be a detente in our field where we each respected the viewpoint of the other, but now it is nonstop advocacy for abortion. Some authors want to accelerate and intensify that advocacy. I suspect that the pro-life views like mine will continue to be silenced. I just want the authors to know that we are not united in this post-Dobbs world. Many of us want appropriate limits on termination. We are not in favor of the unlimited right to abort a fetus up to the moment of delivery.

Steven G. Nelson

Phoenix, Arizona

Drospirenone vs norethindrone progestin-only pills. Is there a clear winner?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (FEBRUARY 2022)

Contraception queries

Dr. Barbieri, addressing your editorial on drospirenone and norethindrone pills, can you tell me why there are 4 placebo pills in Slynd? In addition, why did Exeltis choose a 24/4 regimen instead of a continuous regimen? And are there data on bleeding patterns with continuous drospirenone versus 24/4?

Meredith S. Cassidy, MD

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Cassidy for the excellent question! The purpose of the 4 placebo pills in the Slynd (drospirenone 4 mg) 24/4 progestin-only contraceptive is to induce scheduled bleeding and reduce the number of days of unscheduled uterine bleeding. In a study of 858 patients, compared with a continuous progestin-only desogestrel contraceptive, Slynd with 4 placebo pills, was associated with significantly fewer days of unscheduled bleeding, 22 days versus 35 days (P<.0003) over 8 months of contraceptive use.¹

The norethindrone progestin-only pill (POP) , which is available in the United States has very weak anti-ovulatory properties. If there were 4 placebo pills in the norethindrone POP, ovulation rates would increase, leading to reduced contraceptive efficacy. In contrast, Slynd with 4 placebo pills has excellent anti-ovulatory efficacy.

Reference

1. Palacios S, Colli E, Regidor PA. Bleeding profile of women using a drospirenone-ony 4 mg over nine cycles in comparison with desogestrel 0.075 mg. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0231856.

Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (NOVEMBER 2022)

ERAS for all cesarean deliveries

In Dr. Barbieri’s editorial “Should every scheduled cesarean birth use an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway?”, he and Dr. Schantz-Dunn outline several reasons why the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

I would suggest that ERAS principles should be used for all cesarean deliveries (CDs), not only scheduled ones. Many components of CD ERAS pathways are equally applicable to scheduled and unscheduled CDs, specifically those components that apply to intraoperative care (antibiotic prophylaxis, skin preparation, surgical technique, uterotonic administration, normothermia, and multimodal anesthesia) and postoperative care (VTE prophylaxis, gum chewing, early oral intake, early ambulation, early removal of bladder catheter, predischarge patient education, scheduled analgesic prophylaxis with acetaminophen, and NSAIDS). Although scheduled CDs have the additional advantage of the pre-hospital components (breastfeeding education, shortened fasting interval, carbohydrate loading, anemia prevention, and physiologic optimization), most of the benefit of ERAS for CD is likely attributable to the intraoperative and postoperative components.

For example, in our CD ERAS program, the median postoperative opioid consumption was reduced from a baseline of more than 100 morphine mg equivalents (MME) in both scheduled CDs (23 MME, interquartile range [IQR], 0-70) and unscheduled CDs (23 MME, IQR, 0-75).¹ Remarkably, 29% of patients in the ERAS pathway used no postoperative opioids at all, a testament to the efficacy of neuraxial morphine and postoperative acetaminophen and NSAIDS. In another program, ERAS was associated with decreased postpartum length of stay and reduced direct costs in both scheduled and unscheduled CDs.²

References

1. Combs CA, Robinson T, Mekis C, et al. Enhanced recovery after cesarean: impact on postoperative opioid use and length of stay. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:237-239.
2. Fay EE, Hitti JE, Delgado CM, et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for cesarean delivery decreases hospital stay and cost. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:349.e1-e9.

C. Andrew Combs, MD, PhD

Sunrise, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

I am grateful to Dr. Combs’ advocacy for applying ERAS principles to all CD births, including scheduled and unscheduled operations. Dr. Combs notes that the intraoperative and postoperative components of ERAS can be used for both scheduled and unscheduled CD births. Of particular note is the marked reduction in opioid medication use achieved among Dr. Combs’ patients who were on an ERAS pathway. Hopefully, due to Dr. Combs clinical and research leadership many more patients will benefit from the use of an ERAS pathway.

ObGyns united in a divided post-Dobbs America

ERIN TRACY BRADLEY, MD, MPH, AND MEGAN L. EVANS,MD, MPH (DECEMBER 2022)

ObGyns are not united on this issue

I just finished reading the article by Drs. Bradley and Evans in the December edition of OBG Management. I am an older ObGyn, and I remember when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations within our specialty were more circumspect when discussing abortion. They recognized that there were many practitioners who held sincere opinions regarding abortion, feeling that it was ending a sacred life. I am one of those practitioners. I have always felt that we, of all practitioners, should be aware of the reality of early fetal life. We scan patients every day. To see the unborn fetus in all its glory should indelibly impress on each of us that this is life.

The unborn seem not to have advocates like Drs. Bradley and Evans. In fact, those who hold pro-life opinions are regularly silenced in publications and on social media. The Facebooks and Twitters of the world tend to hold us in derision when they are not silencing us. There used to be a detente in our field where we each respected the viewpoint of the other, but now it is nonstop advocacy for abortion. Some authors want to accelerate and intensify that advocacy. I suspect that the pro-life views like mine will continue to be silenced. I just want the authors to know that we are not united in this post-Dobbs world. Many of us want appropriate limits on termination. We are not in favor of the unlimited right to abort a fetus up to the moment of delivery.

Steven G. Nelson

Phoenix, Arizona

In 2009, the Lancet called climate change the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, the effects of which will be experienced in our lifetimes.¹ Significant amounts of data have demonstrated the negative health effects of heat, air pollution, and exposure to toxic substances.^2,3 These effects have been seen in every geographic region of the United States, and in multiple organ systems and specialties, including obstetrics, pediatrics, and even cardiopulmonary and bariatric surgery.^2-5

Although it does not receive the scrutiny of other industries, the global health care industry accounts for almost double the amount of carbon emissions as global aviation, and the United States accounts for 27% of this footprint despite only having 4% of the world’s population.⁶ It therefore serves that our own industry is an excellent target for reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Consider the climate impact of hysterectomy, the second-most common surgery that women undergo. In this article, we will use the example of a 50-year-old woman with fibroids who plans to undergo definitive treatment via total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Climate impact of US health care

Hospital buildings in the United States are energy intensive, consuming 10% of the energy used in commercial buildings every year, accounting for over $8 billion. Operating rooms (ORs) account for a third of this usage.⁷ Hospitals also use more water than any other type of commercial building, for necessary actions like cooling, sterilization, and laundry.⁸ Further, US hospitals generate 14,000 tons of waste per day, with a third of this coming from the ORs. Sadly, up to 15% is food waste, as we are not very good about selecting and proportioning healthy food for our staff and inpatients.⁶

While health care is utility intensive, the majority of emissions are created through the production, transport, and disposal of goods coming through our supply chain.⁶ Hospitals are significant consumers of single-use objects, the majority of which are petroleum-derived plastics—accounting for an estimated 71% of emissions coming from the health care sector. Supply chain is the second largest expense in health care, but with current shortages, it is estimated to overtake labor costs by this year. The United States is also the largest consumer of pharmaceuticals worldwide, supporting a $20 billion packaging industry,⁹ which creates a significant amount of waste.

Climate impact of the OR

Although ORs only account for a small portion of hospital square footage, they account for a significant amount of health care’s carbon footprint through high waste production and excessive consumption of single-use items. Just one surgical procedure in a hospital is estimated to produce about the same amount of waste as a typical family of 4 would in an entire week.¹⁰ Furthermore, the majority of these single-use items, including sterile packaging, are sorted inappropriately as regulated medical waste (RMW, “biohazardous” or “red bag” waste) (FIGURE 1a). RMW has significant effects on the environment since it must be incinerated or steam autoclaved prior to transport to the landfill, leading to high amounts of air pollution and energy usage.

We all notice the visible impacts of waste in the OR, but other contributors to carbon emissions are invisible. Energy consumption is a huge contributor to the overall carbon footprint of surgery. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] is responsible for 52% of hospital energy needs but accounts for 99% of OR energy consumption.¹¹ Despite the large energy requirements of the ORs, they are largely unoccupied in the evenings and on weekends, and thermostats are not adjusted accordingly.

Anesthetic gases are another powerful contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the OR. Anesthetic gases alone contribute about 25% of the overall carbon footprint of the OR, and US health care emits 660,000 tons of carbon equivalents from anesthetic gas use per year.¹² Desflurane is 1,600 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in its global warming potential followed by isoflurane and sevoflurane;¹³ this underscores the importance of working with our anesthesia colleagues on the differences between the anesthetic gases they use. Enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations in gynecology already recommend avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases in favor of propofol to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting.¹⁴

In the context of a patient undergoing a TLH, the estimated carbon footprint in the United States is about 560 kg of CO₂ equivalents—roughly the same as driving 1,563 miles in a gas-powered car.

Continue to: Climate impact on our patients...

The data in obstetrics and gynecology is clear that climate change is affecting patient outcomes, both globally and in our own country. A systematic review of 32 million births found that air pollution and heat exposure were associated with preterm birth and low birth weight, and these effects were seen in all geographic regions across the United States.¹ A study of 5.9 million births in California found that patients who lived near coal- and oil-power plants had up to a 27% reduction in preterm births when those power plants closed and air pollution decreased.¹⁵ A study in Nature Sustainability on 250,000 pregnancies that ended in missed abortions at 14 weeks or less found the odds ratio of missed abortion increased with the cumulative exposure to air pollution.¹⁶ When air pollution was examined in comparison to other factors, neighborhood air pollution better predicted preterm birth, very preterm birth, and small for gestational age more than race, ethnicity, or any other socio-economic factor.¹⁷ The effects of air pollution have been demonstrated in other fields as well, including increased mortality after cardiac transplantation with exposure to air pollution,⁴ and for patients undergoing bariatric surgery who live near major roadways, decreased weight loss, less improvement in hemoglobin A_1c, and less change in lipids compared with those with less exposure to roadway pollution.⁵

Air pollution and heat are not the only factors that influence health. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and single-use plastic polymers, which are used in significant supply in US health care, have been found in human blood,¹⁸ intestine, and all portions of the placenta.¹⁹ Phthalates, an EDC found in medical use plastics and medications to control delivery, have been associated with increasing fibroid burden in patients undergoing hysterectomy and myomectomy.²⁰ The example case patient with fibroids undergoing TLH may have had her condition worsened by exposure to phthalates.

Specific areas for improvement

There is a huge opportunity for improvement to reduce the total carbon footprint of a TLH.

A lifecycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States concluded that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions could be achieved by minimizing opened materials, using reusable and reprocessed instruments, reducing off-hour energy use in the OR (HVAC setbacks), and avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases.²¹ The sterilization and re-processing of reusable instruments represented the smallest proportion of carbon emissions from a TLH. Data on patient safety supports these interventions, as current practices have more to do with hospital culture and processes than evidence.

Despite a push to use single-use objects by industry and regulatory agencies in the name of patient safety, data demonstrate that single-use objects are in actuality not safer for patients and may be associated with increased surgical site infections (SSIs). A study from a cancer center in California found that when single-use head covers, shoe covers, and facemasks were eliminated due to supply shortages during the pandemic, SSIs went down by half, despite an increase in surgical volume and an increase in the number of contaminated cases.²² The authors reported an increase in hand hygiene throughout the hospital, which likely contributed to the success of reducing SSIs.

Similarly, a systematic review found no evidence to support single-use instruments over reusable or reprocessed instruments when considering instrument function, ease of use, patient safety, SSIs, or long-term patient outcomes.²³ While it may be easy for regulatory agencies to focus on disposing objects as paramount to reducing infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the biggest factors affecting SSIs are appropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics, skin antisepsis, and patient metabolic control.²⁴ Disposing of single-use objects in the name of patient safety will worsen patient health outcomes when considering patient proximity to waste, pollution, and EDCs.

The sterilization process for reusable items is often called out by the medical supply industry as wasteful and energy intensive; however, data refute these claims. A Swedish study researching reusable versus single-use trocars found that a reusable trocar system offers a robust opportunity to reduce both the environmental and financial costs for laparoscopic surgery.²⁵ We can further decrease the environmental impact of reusable instruments by using sets instead of individually packed instruments and packing autoclaves more efficiently. By using rigid sterilization containers, there was an 85% reduction in carbon footprint as compared with the blue wrap system.

Electricity use can be easily reduced across all surgical spaces by performing HVAC setbacks during low occupancy times of day. On nights and weekends, when there are very few surgical cases occurring, one study found that by decreasing the ventilation rate, turning off lights, and performing the minimum temperature control in unused ORs, electricity use was cut in half.¹¹

Waste triage and recycling

Reducing regulated medical waste is another area where hospitals can make a huge impact on carbon emissions and costs with little more than education and process change. Guidelines for regulated medical waste sorting developed out of the HIV epidemic due to the fear of blood products. Although studies show that regulated medical waste is not more infectious than household waste, state departments of public health have kept these guidelines in place for sorting fluid blood and tissue into RMW containers and bags.²⁶ The best hospital performers keep RMW below 10% of the total waste stream, while many ORs send close to 100% of their waste as RMW (FIGURE 1b). ORs can work with nursing and environmental services staff to assess processes and divert waste into recycling and regular waste. Many OR staff are acutely aware of the huge amount of waste produced and want to make a positive impact. Success in this small area often builds momentum to tackle harder sustainability practices throughout the hospital.

Continue to: Removal of EDCs from medical products...

Removal of EDCs from medical products

Single-use medical supplies are not only wasteful but also contain harmful EDCs, such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), parabens, perfluoroalkyl substances, and triclosan. Phthalates, for example, account for 30% to 40% of the weight of medical-use plastics, and parabens are ubiquitously found in ultrasound gel.³ Studies looking at exposure to EDCs within the neonatal intensive care unit reveal substantial BPA, phthalate, and paraben levels within biologic samples from premature infants, thought to be above toxicity limits. While we do not know the full extent to which EDCs can affect neonatal development, there is already mounting evidence that EDCs are associated with endocrine, metabolic, and neurodevelopmental disorders throughout our lifespan.³

30-day climate challenge

Although the example case patient undergoing TLH for fibroids will never need care for her fibroids again, the climate impact of her time in the OR represents the most carbon-intensive care she will ever need. Surgery as practiced in the United States today is unsustainable.

In 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order requiring all federal facilities, including health care facilities and hospitals, to be carbon neutral by 2035. In order to make meaningful changes industry-wide, we should be petitioning lawmakers for stricter environmental regulations in health care, similar to regulations in the manufacturing and airline industries. We recommend a 30-day climate challenge (FIGURE 2) for bringing awareness to your circles of influence. Physicians have an ethical duty to advocate for change at the local, regional, and national level if we want to see a better future for our patients, their children, and even ourselves. Organizations such as Practice Greenhealth, Health Care without Harm, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby can help amplify our voices to reach the right people to implement sweeping policy changes. ●

In 2009, the Lancet called climate change the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, the effects of which will be experienced in our lifetimes.¹ Significant amounts of data have demonstrated the negative health effects of heat, air pollution, and exposure to toxic substances.^2,3 These effects have been seen in every geographic region of the United States, and in multiple organ systems and specialties, including obstetrics, pediatrics, and even cardiopulmonary and bariatric surgery.^2-5

Although it does not receive the scrutiny of other industries, the global health care industry accounts for almost double the amount of carbon emissions as global aviation, and the United States accounts for 27% of this footprint despite only having 4% of the world’s population.⁶ It therefore serves that our own industry is an excellent target for reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Consider the climate impact of hysterectomy, the second-most common surgery that women undergo. In this article, we will use the example of a 50-year-old woman with fibroids who plans to undergo definitive treatment via total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Climate impact of US health care

Hospital buildings in the United States are energy intensive, consuming 10% of the energy used in commercial buildings every year, accounting for over $8 billion. Operating rooms (ORs) account for a third of this usage.⁷ Hospitals also use more water than any other type of commercial building, for necessary actions like cooling, sterilization, and laundry.⁸ Further, US hospitals generate 14,000 tons of waste per day, with a third of this coming from the ORs. Sadly, up to 15% is food waste, as we are not very good about selecting and proportioning healthy food for our staff and inpatients.⁶

While health care is utility intensive, the majority of emissions are created through the production, transport, and disposal of goods coming through our supply chain.⁶ Hospitals are significant consumers of single-use objects, the majority of which are petroleum-derived plastics—accounting for an estimated 71% of emissions coming from the health care sector. Supply chain is the second largest expense in health care, but with current shortages, it is estimated to overtake labor costs by this year. The United States is also the largest consumer of pharmaceuticals worldwide, supporting a $20 billion packaging industry,⁹ which creates a significant amount of waste.

Climate impact of the OR

Although ORs only account for a small portion of hospital square footage, they account for a significant amount of health care’s carbon footprint through high waste production and excessive consumption of single-use items. Just one surgical procedure in a hospital is estimated to produce about the same amount of waste as a typical family of 4 would in an entire week.¹⁰ Furthermore, the majority of these single-use items, including sterile packaging, are sorted inappropriately as regulated medical waste (RMW, “biohazardous” or “red bag” waste) (FIGURE 1a). RMW has significant effects on the environment since it must be incinerated or steam autoclaved prior to transport to the landfill, leading to high amounts of air pollution and energy usage.

We all notice the visible impacts of waste in the OR, but other contributors to carbon emissions are invisible. Energy consumption is a huge contributor to the overall carbon footprint of surgery. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] is responsible for 52% of hospital energy needs but accounts for 99% of OR energy consumption.¹¹ Despite the large energy requirements of the ORs, they are largely unoccupied in the evenings and on weekends, and thermostats are not adjusted accordingly.

Anesthetic gases are another powerful contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the OR. Anesthetic gases alone contribute about 25% of the overall carbon footprint of the OR, and US health care emits 660,000 tons of carbon equivalents from anesthetic gas use per year.¹² Desflurane is 1,600 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in its global warming potential followed by isoflurane and sevoflurane;¹³ this underscores the importance of working with our anesthesia colleagues on the differences between the anesthetic gases they use. Enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations in gynecology already recommend avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases in favor of propofol to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting.¹⁴

In the context of a patient undergoing a TLH, the estimated carbon footprint in the United States is about 560 kg of CO₂ equivalents—roughly the same as driving 1,563 miles in a gas-powered car.

Continue to: Climate impact on our patients...

The data in obstetrics and gynecology is clear that climate change is affecting patient outcomes, both globally and in our own country. A systematic review of 32 million births found that air pollution and heat exposure were associated with preterm birth and low birth weight, and these effects were seen in all geographic regions across the United States.¹ A study of 5.9 million births in California found that patients who lived near coal- and oil-power plants had up to a 27% reduction in preterm births when those power plants closed and air pollution decreased.¹⁵ A study in Nature Sustainability on 250,000 pregnancies that ended in missed abortions at 14 weeks or less found the odds ratio of missed abortion increased with the cumulative exposure to air pollution.¹⁶ When air pollution was examined in comparison to other factors, neighborhood air pollution better predicted preterm birth, very preterm birth, and small for gestational age more than race, ethnicity, or any other socio-economic factor.¹⁷ The effects of air pollution have been demonstrated in other fields as well, including increased mortality after cardiac transplantation with exposure to air pollution,⁴ and for patients undergoing bariatric surgery who live near major roadways, decreased weight loss, less improvement in hemoglobin A_1c, and less change in lipids compared with those with less exposure to roadway pollution.⁵

Air pollution and heat are not the only factors that influence health. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and single-use plastic polymers, which are used in significant supply in US health care, have been found in human blood,¹⁸ intestine, and all portions of the placenta.¹⁹ Phthalates, an EDC found in medical use plastics and medications to control delivery, have been associated with increasing fibroid burden in patients undergoing hysterectomy and myomectomy.²⁰ The example case patient with fibroids undergoing TLH may have had her condition worsened by exposure to phthalates.

Specific areas for improvement

There is a huge opportunity for improvement to reduce the total carbon footprint of a TLH.

A lifecycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States concluded that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions could be achieved by minimizing opened materials, using reusable and reprocessed instruments, reducing off-hour energy use in the OR (HVAC setbacks), and avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases.²¹ The sterilization and re-processing of reusable instruments represented the smallest proportion of carbon emissions from a TLH. Data on patient safety supports these interventions, as current practices have more to do with hospital culture and processes than evidence.

Despite a push to use single-use objects by industry and regulatory agencies in the name of patient safety, data demonstrate that single-use objects are in actuality not safer for patients and may be associated with increased surgical site infections (SSIs). A study from a cancer center in California found that when single-use head covers, shoe covers, and facemasks were eliminated due to supply shortages during the pandemic, SSIs went down by half, despite an increase in surgical volume and an increase in the number of contaminated cases.²² The authors reported an increase in hand hygiene throughout the hospital, which likely contributed to the success of reducing SSIs.

Similarly, a systematic review found no evidence to support single-use instruments over reusable or reprocessed instruments when considering instrument function, ease of use, patient safety, SSIs, or long-term patient outcomes.²³ While it may be easy for regulatory agencies to focus on disposing objects as paramount to reducing infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the biggest factors affecting SSIs are appropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics, skin antisepsis, and patient metabolic control.²⁴ Disposing of single-use objects in the name of patient safety will worsen patient health outcomes when considering patient proximity to waste, pollution, and EDCs.

The sterilization process for reusable items is often called out by the medical supply industry as wasteful and energy intensive; however, data refute these claims. A Swedish study researching reusable versus single-use trocars found that a reusable trocar system offers a robust opportunity to reduce both the environmental and financial costs for laparoscopic surgery.²⁵ We can further decrease the environmental impact of reusable instruments by using sets instead of individually packed instruments and packing autoclaves more efficiently. By using rigid sterilization containers, there was an 85% reduction in carbon footprint as compared with the blue wrap system.

Electricity use can be easily reduced across all surgical spaces by performing HVAC setbacks during low occupancy times of day. On nights and weekends, when there are very few surgical cases occurring, one study found that by decreasing the ventilation rate, turning off lights, and performing the minimum temperature control in unused ORs, electricity use was cut in half.¹¹

Waste triage and recycling

Reducing regulated medical waste is another area where hospitals can make a huge impact on carbon emissions and costs with little more than education and process change. Guidelines for regulated medical waste sorting developed out of the HIV epidemic due to the fear of blood products. Although studies show that regulated medical waste is not more infectious than household waste, state departments of public health have kept these guidelines in place for sorting fluid blood and tissue into RMW containers and bags.²⁶ The best hospital performers keep RMW below 10% of the total waste stream, while many ORs send close to 100% of their waste as RMW (FIGURE 1b). ORs can work with nursing and environmental services staff to assess processes and divert waste into recycling and regular waste. Many OR staff are acutely aware of the huge amount of waste produced and want to make a positive impact. Success in this small area often builds momentum to tackle harder sustainability practices throughout the hospital.

Continue to: Removal of EDCs from medical products...

Removal of EDCs from medical products

Single-use medical supplies are not only wasteful but also contain harmful EDCs, such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), parabens, perfluoroalkyl substances, and triclosan. Phthalates, for example, account for 30% to 40% of the weight of medical-use plastics, and parabens are ubiquitously found in ultrasound gel.³ Studies looking at exposure to EDCs within the neonatal intensive care unit reveal substantial BPA, phthalate, and paraben levels within biologic samples from premature infants, thought to be above toxicity limits. While we do not know the full extent to which EDCs can affect neonatal development, there is already mounting evidence that EDCs are associated with endocrine, metabolic, and neurodevelopmental disorders throughout our lifespan.³

30-day climate challenge

Although the example case patient undergoing TLH for fibroids will never need care for her fibroids again, the climate impact of her time in the OR represents the most carbon-intensive care she will ever need. Surgery as practiced in the United States today is unsustainable.

In 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order requiring all federal facilities, including health care facilities and hospitals, to be carbon neutral by 2035. In order to make meaningful changes industry-wide, we should be petitioning lawmakers for stricter environmental regulations in health care, similar to regulations in the manufacturing and airline industries. We recommend a 30-day climate challenge (FIGURE 2) for bringing awareness to your circles of influence. Physicians have an ethical duty to advocate for change at the local, regional, and national level if we want to see a better future for our patients, their children, and even ourselves. Organizations such as Practice Greenhealth, Health Care without Harm, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby can help amplify our voices to reach the right people to implement sweeping policy changes. ●

In 2009, the Lancet called climate change the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, the effects of which will be experienced in our lifetimes.¹ Significant amounts of data have demonstrated the negative health effects of heat, air pollution, and exposure to toxic substances.^2,3 These effects have been seen in every geographic region of the United States, and in multiple organ systems and specialties, including obstetrics, pediatrics, and even cardiopulmonary and bariatric surgery.^2-5

Although it does not receive the scrutiny of other industries, the global health care industry accounts for almost double the amount of carbon emissions as global aviation, and the United States accounts for 27% of this footprint despite only having 4% of the world’s population.⁶ It therefore serves that our own industry is an excellent target for reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Consider the climate impact of hysterectomy, the second-most common surgery that women undergo. In this article, we will use the example of a 50-year-old woman with fibroids who plans to undergo definitive treatment via total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Climate impact of US health care

Hospital buildings in the United States are energy intensive, consuming 10% of the energy used in commercial buildings every year, accounting for over $8 billion. Operating rooms (ORs) account for a third of this usage.⁷ Hospitals also use more water than any other type of commercial building, for necessary actions like cooling, sterilization, and laundry.⁸ Further, US hospitals generate 14,000 tons of waste per day, with a third of this coming from the ORs. Sadly, up to 15% is food waste, as we are not very good about selecting and proportioning healthy food for our staff and inpatients.⁶

While health care is utility intensive, the majority of emissions are created through the production, transport, and disposal of goods coming through our supply chain.⁶ Hospitals are significant consumers of single-use objects, the majority of which are petroleum-derived plastics—accounting for an estimated 71% of emissions coming from the health care sector. Supply chain is the second largest expense in health care, but with current shortages, it is estimated to overtake labor costs by this year. The United States is also the largest consumer of pharmaceuticals worldwide, supporting a $20 billion packaging industry,⁹ which creates a significant amount of waste.

Climate impact of the OR

Although ORs only account for a small portion of hospital square footage, they account for a significant amount of health care’s carbon footprint through high waste production and excessive consumption of single-use items. Just one surgical procedure in a hospital is estimated to produce about the same amount of waste as a typical family of 4 would in an entire week.¹⁰ Furthermore, the majority of these single-use items, including sterile packaging, are sorted inappropriately as regulated medical waste (RMW, “biohazardous” or “red bag” waste) (FIGURE 1a). RMW has significant effects on the environment since it must be incinerated or steam autoclaved prior to transport to the landfill, leading to high amounts of air pollution and energy usage.

We all notice the visible impacts of waste in the OR, but other contributors to carbon emissions are invisible. Energy consumption is a huge contributor to the overall carbon footprint of surgery. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] is responsible for 52% of hospital energy needs but accounts for 99% of OR energy consumption.¹¹ Despite the large energy requirements of the ORs, they are largely unoccupied in the evenings and on weekends, and thermostats are not adjusted accordingly.

Anesthetic gases are another powerful contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the OR. Anesthetic gases alone contribute about 25% of the overall carbon footprint of the OR, and US health care emits 660,000 tons of carbon equivalents from anesthetic gas use per year.¹² Desflurane is 1,600 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in its global warming potential followed by isoflurane and sevoflurane;¹³ this underscores the importance of working with our anesthesia colleagues on the differences between the anesthetic gases they use. Enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations in gynecology already recommend avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases in favor of propofol to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting.¹⁴

In the context of a patient undergoing a TLH, the estimated carbon footprint in the United States is about 560 kg of CO₂ equivalents—roughly the same as driving 1,563 miles in a gas-powered car.

Continue to: Climate impact on our patients...

The data in obstetrics and gynecology is clear that climate change is affecting patient outcomes, both globally and in our own country. A systematic review of 32 million births found that air pollution and heat exposure were associated with preterm birth and low birth weight, and these effects were seen in all geographic regions across the United States.¹ A study of 5.9 million births in California found that patients who lived near coal- and oil-power plants had up to a 27% reduction in preterm births when those power plants closed and air pollution decreased.¹⁵ A study in Nature Sustainability on 250,000 pregnancies that ended in missed abortions at 14 weeks or less found the odds ratio of missed abortion increased with the cumulative exposure to air pollution.¹⁶ When air pollution was examined in comparison to other factors, neighborhood air pollution better predicted preterm birth, very preterm birth, and small for gestational age more than race, ethnicity, or any other socio-economic factor.¹⁷ The effects of air pollution have been demonstrated in other fields as well, including increased mortality after cardiac transplantation with exposure to air pollution,⁴ and for patients undergoing bariatric surgery who live near major roadways, decreased weight loss, less improvement in hemoglobin A_1c, and less change in lipids compared with those with less exposure to roadway pollution.⁵

Air pollution and heat are not the only factors that influence health. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and single-use plastic polymers, which are used in significant supply in US health care, have been found in human blood,¹⁸ intestine, and all portions of the placenta.¹⁹ Phthalates, an EDC found in medical use plastics and medications to control delivery, have been associated with increasing fibroid burden in patients undergoing hysterectomy and myomectomy.²⁰ The example case patient with fibroids undergoing TLH may have had her condition worsened by exposure to phthalates.

Specific areas for improvement

There is a huge opportunity for improvement to reduce the total carbon footprint of a TLH.

A lifecycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States concluded that an 80% reduction in carbon emissions could be achieved by minimizing opened materials, using reusable and reprocessed instruments, reducing off-hour energy use in the OR (HVAC setbacks), and avoiding the use of volatile anesthetic gases.²¹ The sterilization and re-processing of reusable instruments represented the smallest proportion of carbon emissions from a TLH. Data on patient safety supports these interventions, as current practices have more to do with hospital culture and processes than evidence.

Despite a push to use single-use objects by industry and regulatory agencies in the name of patient safety, data demonstrate that single-use objects are in actuality not safer for patients and may be associated with increased surgical site infections (SSIs). A study from a cancer center in California found that when single-use head covers, shoe covers, and facemasks were eliminated due to supply shortages during the pandemic, SSIs went down by half, despite an increase in surgical volume and an increase in the number of contaminated cases.²² The authors reported an increase in hand hygiene throughout the hospital, which likely contributed to the success of reducing SSIs.

Similarly, a systematic review found no evidence to support single-use instruments over reusable or reprocessed instruments when considering instrument function, ease of use, patient safety, SSIs, or long-term patient outcomes.²³ While it may be easy for regulatory agencies to focus on disposing objects as paramount to reducing infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the biggest factors affecting SSIs are appropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics, skin antisepsis, and patient metabolic control.²⁴ Disposing of single-use objects in the name of patient safety will worsen patient health outcomes when considering patient proximity to waste, pollution, and EDCs.

The sterilization process for reusable items is often called out by the medical supply industry as wasteful and energy intensive; however, data refute these claims. A Swedish study researching reusable versus single-use trocars found that a reusable trocar system offers a robust opportunity to reduce both the environmental and financial costs for laparoscopic surgery.²⁵ We can further decrease the environmental impact of reusable instruments by using sets instead of individually packed instruments and packing autoclaves more efficiently. By using rigid sterilization containers, there was an 85% reduction in carbon footprint as compared with the blue wrap system.

Electricity use can be easily reduced across all surgical spaces by performing HVAC setbacks during low occupancy times of day. On nights and weekends, when there are very few surgical cases occurring, one study found that by decreasing the ventilation rate, turning off lights, and performing the minimum temperature control in unused ORs, electricity use was cut in half.¹¹

Waste triage and recycling

Reducing regulated medical waste is another area where hospitals can make a huge impact on carbon emissions and costs with little more than education and process change. Guidelines for regulated medical waste sorting developed out of the HIV epidemic due to the fear of blood products. Although studies show that regulated medical waste is not more infectious than household waste, state departments of public health have kept these guidelines in place for sorting fluid blood and tissue into RMW containers and bags.²⁶ The best hospital performers keep RMW below 10% of the total waste stream, while many ORs send close to 100% of their waste as RMW (FIGURE 1b). ORs can work with nursing and environmental services staff to assess processes and divert waste into recycling and regular waste. Many OR staff are acutely aware of the huge amount of waste produced and want to make a positive impact. Success in this small area often builds momentum to tackle harder sustainability practices throughout the hospital.

Continue to: Removal of EDCs from medical products...

Removal of EDCs from medical products

Single-use medical supplies are not only wasteful but also contain harmful EDCs, such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), parabens, perfluoroalkyl substances, and triclosan. Phthalates, for example, account for 30% to 40% of the weight of medical-use plastics, and parabens are ubiquitously found in ultrasound gel.³ Studies looking at exposure to EDCs within the neonatal intensive care unit reveal substantial BPA, phthalate, and paraben levels within biologic samples from premature infants, thought to be above toxicity limits. While we do not know the full extent to which EDCs can affect neonatal development, there is already mounting evidence that EDCs are associated with endocrine, metabolic, and neurodevelopmental disorders throughout our lifespan.³

30-day climate challenge

Although the example case patient undergoing TLH for fibroids will never need care for her fibroids again, the climate impact of her time in the OR represents the most carbon-intensive care she will ever need. Surgery as practiced in the United States today is unsustainable.

In 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order requiring all federal facilities, including health care facilities and hospitals, to be carbon neutral by 2035. In order to make meaningful changes industry-wide, we should be petitioning lawmakers for stricter environmental regulations in health care, similar to regulations in the manufacturing and airline industries. We recommend a 30-day climate challenge (FIGURE 2) for bringing awareness to your circles of influence. Physicians have an ethical duty to advocate for change at the local, regional, and national level if we want to see a better future for our patients, their children, and even ourselves. Organizations such as Practice Greenhealth, Health Care without Harm, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby can help amplify our voices to reach the right people to implement sweeping policy changes. ●