MDedge ObGyn

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a two-lane bridge in my town. It is quaint and picturesque, and when we first moved here, I would gaze out at the water as I drove, letting my mind wander along with the seagulls drifting alongside the car. Until one day, crossing back over, I passed a school bus stopped in the other lane, and instead of waving back, the driver gave me such a fierce look of disapproval I felt like I’d been to the principal’s office. What had I done?

I started paying more attention to the pattern of the other cars on the bridge. Although it appeared to be a standard two-lane width, the lanes weren’t quite wide enough if a school bus or large truck needed to cross at the same time as a car coming from the opposite direction. They had to wait until the other lane was clear. It was an unwritten rule of the town that if you saw a school bus on the other side, you stopped your car and yielded the bridge to the bus. It took me weeks to figure this out. When I did, I felt like I finally belonged in the community. Before, I’d been an outsider.

This got me thinking about culture. Every place has its unwritten rules, whether a community or a workplace. But how do we know the culture of a place? It’s pretty much impossible until we experience it for ourselves.

When I did figure out the bridge, I had a little bit of anger, to be honest. How was I supposed to know about the lanes? There weren’t any signs. Geez.

Now, when I approach the bridge, I don’t even think about it. I know what to do if I see a bus coming.

But sometimes I remember that time of confusion before I deciphered the unwritten rule. I still have a twinge of guilt for having done something wrong, even though it hadn’t been my fault.

It reminded me of a memory from medical training. I was an MS4, and my ER rotation was in a busy county hospital with a level I trauma center. To say that the place was chaotic would be an understatement.

On the first morning, I was shown the chart rack (yes, this was back in the day of paper charts). Charts were placed in the order that patients arrived. Med students and residents were to take a chart in chronological order, go triage and assess the patient, and then find an attending. Once finished, you put the chart back on the rack and picked up the next one. This was the extent of my orientation to the ER.

The days and weeks of the rotation flew by. It was a busy and exciting time. By the end of the month, I’d come to feel a part of the team.

Until one day, after finishing discharging a patient, an attending asked me, “Where’s the billing sheet?”

I had no idea what she was talking about. No one had ever shown me a billing sheet. But by this point, as an MS4, I knew well that if an attending asked you something you didn’t know the answer to, you shouldn’t just say that you didn’t know. You should try to figure out if you could at least approximate an answer first.

As I scrambled in my mind to figure out what she was asking me, she took one look at the apprehension in my eyes and asked again, raising her voice, “You haven’t been doing the billing sheets?”

I thought back to the first day of the rotation. The cursory 30-second orientation. Chart rack. Take one. See the patient. Put it back. See the next patient. Nothing about billing sheets.

“No,” I said. “No one ever told me about – ”

But the attending didn’t care that I hadn’t been instructed on the billing sheets. She ripped into me, yelling about how she couldn’t believe I’d been working there the entire month and was not doing the billing sheets. She showed me what they were and where they were supposed to be going and, in front of the whole staff, treated me like not only the biggest idiot she’d ever worked with but that the hospital had ever seen.

As she berated me, I thought about all the patients I’d seen that month. All the billing sheets I hadn’t placed in the pile. All the attendings who hadn’t gotten credit for the patients they’d staffed with me.

But how could I have known? I wanted to ask. How could I have known if nobody showed me or told me?

It was like the bridge. I was in a new environment and somehow expected to know the rules without anyone telling me; and when I didn’t know, people treated me like I’d done it the wrong way on purpose.

I didn’t end up saying anything more to that attending. What could I have said? She had already unleashed a mountain of her pent-up anger at me.

What I did decide in that moment was that I would never be an attending like that.

Like the bridge, this memory years later can still make me feel guilt and shame for doing something wrong. Even though it wasn’t my fault.

I was thinking about this recently with the Match. Thousands of freshly graduated medical students embarking on their new positions as interns in teaching hospitals across the country.

For anyone who, like me, struggled with the unwritten rules of the medical culture with each new rotation, remember to be kind to yourself. If someone treats you poorly for not knowing something, you are not an idiot. You’ve worked incredibly hard to get where you are, and you deserve to be there.

For attendings and more senior trainees, remember what it was like to be starting in a new place. We all make mistakes, and often it’s simply because of a lack of information.

Trainees shouldn’t have to suffer and be made to feel like outsiders until they figure out the unwritten rules of the place. They belong.
 

Dr. Lycette is medical director of Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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