MDedge ObGyn

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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