User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Untreated COVID often involves relapse, clarifying antiviral rebound discussion
These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.
To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).
From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.
“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.
Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.
The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.
Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.
This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.
This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound
“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.
Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.
“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation
This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.
“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.
This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.
“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”
That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,
“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.
An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.
“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”
While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.
These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.
To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).
From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.
“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.
Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.
The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.
Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.
This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.
This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound
“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.
Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.
“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation
This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.
“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.
This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.
“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”
That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,
“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.
An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.
“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”
While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.
These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.
To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).
From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.
“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.
Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.
The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.
Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.
This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.
This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound
“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.
Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.
“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation
This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.
“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.
This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.
“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”
That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,
“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.
An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.
“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”
While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Antibiotics and SJS/TEN: Study provides global prevalence
of SJS/TEN in connection with antibiotics.
“SJS/TEN is considered the most severe form of drug hypersensitivity reaction, and antibiotics are an important risk,” Erika Yue Lee, MD, and associates wrote in JAMA Dermatology.
Their analysis, which involved 38 studies published since 1987 with 2,917 patients from more than 20 countries, showed that 86% of all SJS/TEN cases were associated with a single drug, with the rest involving multiple drug triggers, infections, or other causes. More than a quarter (28%) of those patients had used an antibiotic, and the sulfonamides were the class most often triggering SJS/TEN, said Dr. Lee of the University of Toronto and associates.
Sulfonamides were responsible for 32% of the antibiotic-associated cases, which works out to 11% of all SJS/TEN cases included in the analysis. Penicillins were next with 22% of all antibiotic-associated cases, followed by the cephalosporins (11%), fluoroquinolones (4%), and macrolides (2%), the investigators reported.
A subgroup analysis conducted by age indicated that “there was no difference in the proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN between adult and pediatric groups,” they noted.
There were differences, however, among the various antibiotic classes. Sulfonamides represented 54% of antibiotic-triggered reactions in children, compared with 25% in adults, but adults were significantly more likely to have cephalosporin (23%) and fluoroquinolone (5%) involvement than were children (2% and 0, respectively). Macrolide-induced SJS/TEN was more common in children (18% vs. 1%), while the penicillin rate was 18% for both age groups, Dr. Lee and associates said.
A second subgroup analysis establishing the proportion of antibiotic-induced SJS/TEN by continent ranked Australia highest with 43%, but that was based on only one study of 42 patients. North America was slightly lower at 37%, but the analysis included 14 studies and 932 patients. Asia’s 16 studies and 1,298 patients were divided into three regions, with the lowest being the southeast at 16%, according to the researchers.
“Global sulfonamide antibiotic use has been decreasing since 2000 despite an ongoing upward trend of use in other antibiotic classes,” they wrote, but “antibiotics remain one of the most common culprit drugs for SJS/TEN in both adults and children worldwide.”
One of Dr. Lee’s associates has received personal fees from Janssen, AstraZeneca, UpToDate, Verve, BioCryst, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Novavax and has served as codirector of IIID Pty Ltd, which holds a patent for HLA-B*57:01 testing and has a patent pending for detection of HLA-A*32:01 in connection with diagnosing drug reaction without any financial remuneration outside this study.
of SJS/TEN in connection with antibiotics.
“SJS/TEN is considered the most severe form of drug hypersensitivity reaction, and antibiotics are an important risk,” Erika Yue Lee, MD, and associates wrote in JAMA Dermatology.
Their analysis, which involved 38 studies published since 1987 with 2,917 patients from more than 20 countries, showed that 86% of all SJS/TEN cases were associated with a single drug, with the rest involving multiple drug triggers, infections, or other causes. More than a quarter (28%) of those patients had used an antibiotic, and the sulfonamides were the class most often triggering SJS/TEN, said Dr. Lee of the University of Toronto and associates.
Sulfonamides were responsible for 32% of the antibiotic-associated cases, which works out to 11% of all SJS/TEN cases included in the analysis. Penicillins were next with 22% of all antibiotic-associated cases, followed by the cephalosporins (11%), fluoroquinolones (4%), and macrolides (2%), the investigators reported.
A subgroup analysis conducted by age indicated that “there was no difference in the proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN between adult and pediatric groups,” they noted.
There were differences, however, among the various antibiotic classes. Sulfonamides represented 54% of antibiotic-triggered reactions in children, compared with 25% in adults, but adults were significantly more likely to have cephalosporin (23%) and fluoroquinolone (5%) involvement than were children (2% and 0, respectively). Macrolide-induced SJS/TEN was more common in children (18% vs. 1%), while the penicillin rate was 18% for both age groups, Dr. Lee and associates said.
A second subgroup analysis establishing the proportion of antibiotic-induced SJS/TEN by continent ranked Australia highest with 43%, but that was based on only one study of 42 patients. North America was slightly lower at 37%, but the analysis included 14 studies and 932 patients. Asia’s 16 studies and 1,298 patients were divided into three regions, with the lowest being the southeast at 16%, according to the researchers.
“Global sulfonamide antibiotic use has been decreasing since 2000 despite an ongoing upward trend of use in other antibiotic classes,” they wrote, but “antibiotics remain one of the most common culprit drugs for SJS/TEN in both adults and children worldwide.”
One of Dr. Lee’s associates has received personal fees from Janssen, AstraZeneca, UpToDate, Verve, BioCryst, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Novavax and has served as codirector of IIID Pty Ltd, which holds a patent for HLA-B*57:01 testing and has a patent pending for detection of HLA-A*32:01 in connection with diagnosing drug reaction without any financial remuneration outside this study.
of SJS/TEN in connection with antibiotics.
“SJS/TEN is considered the most severe form of drug hypersensitivity reaction, and antibiotics are an important risk,” Erika Yue Lee, MD, and associates wrote in JAMA Dermatology.
Their analysis, which involved 38 studies published since 1987 with 2,917 patients from more than 20 countries, showed that 86% of all SJS/TEN cases were associated with a single drug, with the rest involving multiple drug triggers, infections, or other causes. More than a quarter (28%) of those patients had used an antibiotic, and the sulfonamides were the class most often triggering SJS/TEN, said Dr. Lee of the University of Toronto and associates.
Sulfonamides were responsible for 32% of the antibiotic-associated cases, which works out to 11% of all SJS/TEN cases included in the analysis. Penicillins were next with 22% of all antibiotic-associated cases, followed by the cephalosporins (11%), fluoroquinolones (4%), and macrolides (2%), the investigators reported.
A subgroup analysis conducted by age indicated that “there was no difference in the proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN between adult and pediatric groups,” they noted.
There were differences, however, among the various antibiotic classes. Sulfonamides represented 54% of antibiotic-triggered reactions in children, compared with 25% in adults, but adults were significantly more likely to have cephalosporin (23%) and fluoroquinolone (5%) involvement than were children (2% and 0, respectively). Macrolide-induced SJS/TEN was more common in children (18% vs. 1%), while the penicillin rate was 18% for both age groups, Dr. Lee and associates said.
A second subgroup analysis establishing the proportion of antibiotic-induced SJS/TEN by continent ranked Australia highest with 43%, but that was based on only one study of 42 patients. North America was slightly lower at 37%, but the analysis included 14 studies and 932 patients. Asia’s 16 studies and 1,298 patients were divided into three regions, with the lowest being the southeast at 16%, according to the researchers.
“Global sulfonamide antibiotic use has been decreasing since 2000 despite an ongoing upward trend of use in other antibiotic classes,” they wrote, but “antibiotics remain one of the most common culprit drugs for SJS/TEN in both adults and children worldwide.”
One of Dr. Lee’s associates has received personal fees from Janssen, AstraZeneca, UpToDate, Verve, BioCryst, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Novavax and has served as codirector of IIID Pty Ltd, which holds a patent for HLA-B*57:01 testing and has a patent pending for detection of HLA-A*32:01 in connection with diagnosing drug reaction without any financial remuneration outside this study.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Factors linked to higher risk for death in young cancer survivors
according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.
Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.
The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.
“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”
“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.
To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.
During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.
To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.
After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).
These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.
In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.
The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death.
This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.
That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.
The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.
Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.
The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.
“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”
“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.
To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.
During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.
To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.
After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).
These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.
In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.
The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death.
This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.
That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.
The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.
Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.
Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.
The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.
“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”
“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.
To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.
During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.
To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.
After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).
These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.
In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.
The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death.
This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.
That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.
The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Endovascular therapy benefits large infarction: ANGEL-ASPECT
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Similar effect of early, late BP reduction in stroke: CATIS-2
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
‘Infuriating’ prescription denial leaves patient without antiemetics
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Only a sociopath could work for a large health system,’ doc says sardonically
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Not always implemented or enforced: Harassment policies at work
Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.
Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.
But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
When policies are absent or unenforced
She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.
On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.
For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
Risks in pressing a harassment case
A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.
With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.
“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.
But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.
“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”
Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.
“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
More education needed
Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.
“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.
Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.
But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
When policies are absent or unenforced
She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.
On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.
For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
Risks in pressing a harassment case
A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.
With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.
“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.
But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.
“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”
Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.
“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
More education needed
Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.
“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.
Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.
But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
When policies are absent or unenforced
She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.
On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.
For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
Risks in pressing a harassment case
A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.
With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.
“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.
But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.
“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”
Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.
“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
More education needed
Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.
“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
How prevalent is pediatric melanoma?
SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.
“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “
To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).
While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.
The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.
“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”
Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.
According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.
More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.
In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”
In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).
As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.
“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”
Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”
The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.
In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.
The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.
“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.
“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “
To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).
While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.
The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.
“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”
Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.
According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.
More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.
In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”
In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).
As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.
“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”
Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”
The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.
In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.
The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.
“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.
“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “
To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).
While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.
The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.
“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”
Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.
According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.
More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.
In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”
In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).
As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.
“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”
Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”
The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.
In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.
The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.
“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT MELANOMA 2023
Immunodeficiencies tied to psychiatric disorders in offspring
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.
The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.
The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.
Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Natural experiment’
Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.
“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.
“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.
Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.
In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.
“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.
The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.
The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.
The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.
The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
Elucidation needed
Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.
The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.
“In fully adjusted models, offspring of mothers with PIDs had an increased risk of any psychiatric disorder, while no such risks were observed in offspring of fathers with PIDs” (IRR, 1.17 vs. 1.03; P < .001), the researchers reported.
A higher risk for suicidal behavior was also observed among offspring of mothers with PIDS, in contrast to those of fathers with PIDs (IRR, 1.2 vs. 1.1; P = .01).
The greatest risk for any psychiatric disorder, as well as suicidal behavior, was found in offspring of mothers who had both PIDs and autoimmune diseases (IRRs, 1.24 and 1.44, respectively).
“The results could be seen as substantiating the hypothesis that immune disruption may be important in the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior,” Dr. Isung said.
“Furthermore, the fact that only offspring of mothers and not offspring of fathers with PIDs had this association would align with our hypothesis that MIA is of importance,” he added.
However, he noted that “the specific mechanisms are most likely multifactorial and remain to be elucidated.”
Important piece of the puzzle?
In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”
Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.
He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”
However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.
Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.
“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.
The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.
The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.
The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.
Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Natural experiment’
Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.
“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.
“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.
Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.
In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.
“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.
The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.
The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.
The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.
The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
Elucidation needed
Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.
The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.
“In fully adjusted models, offspring of mothers with PIDs had an increased risk of any psychiatric disorder, while no such risks were observed in offspring of fathers with PIDs” (IRR, 1.17 vs. 1.03; P < .001), the researchers reported.
A higher risk for suicidal behavior was also observed among offspring of mothers with PIDS, in contrast to those of fathers with PIDs (IRR, 1.2 vs. 1.1; P = .01).
The greatest risk for any psychiatric disorder, as well as suicidal behavior, was found in offspring of mothers who had both PIDs and autoimmune diseases (IRRs, 1.24 and 1.44, respectively).
“The results could be seen as substantiating the hypothesis that immune disruption may be important in the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior,” Dr. Isung said.
“Furthermore, the fact that only offspring of mothers and not offspring of fathers with PIDs had this association would align with our hypothesis that MIA is of importance,” he added.
However, he noted that “the specific mechanisms are most likely multifactorial and remain to be elucidated.”
Important piece of the puzzle?
In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”
Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.
He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”
However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.
Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.
“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.
The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.
The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.
The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.
Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Natural experiment’
Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.
“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.
“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.
Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.
In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.
“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.
The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.
The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.
The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.
The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
Elucidation needed
Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.
The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.
“In fully adjusted models, offspring of mothers with PIDs had an increased risk of any psychiatric disorder, while no such risks were observed in offspring of fathers with PIDs” (IRR, 1.17 vs. 1.03; P < .001), the researchers reported.
A higher risk for suicidal behavior was also observed among offspring of mothers with PIDS, in contrast to those of fathers with PIDs (IRR, 1.2 vs. 1.1; P = .01).
The greatest risk for any psychiatric disorder, as well as suicidal behavior, was found in offspring of mothers who had both PIDs and autoimmune diseases (IRRs, 1.24 and 1.44, respectively).
“The results could be seen as substantiating the hypothesis that immune disruption may be important in the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior,” Dr. Isung said.
“Furthermore, the fact that only offspring of mothers and not offspring of fathers with PIDs had this association would align with our hypothesis that MIA is of importance,” he added.
However, he noted that “the specific mechanisms are most likely multifactorial and remain to be elucidated.”
Important piece of the puzzle?
In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”
Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.
He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”
However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.
Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.
“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.
The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY