Guidelines

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations, and alectinib or brigatinib are optimal first-line treatments for stage IV NSCLC with ALK fusions, according to new guidelines.

The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.

The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.

With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.

They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
 

EGFR-mutant NSCLC

The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.

The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.

If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.

The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
 

ALK-mutant NSCLC

For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.

In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.

If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
 

Other mutations

For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.

“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.

The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.

“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
 

Cost considerations

The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.

“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.

“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.

The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations, and alectinib or brigatinib are optimal first-line treatments for stage IV NSCLC with ALK fusions, according to new guidelines.

The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.

The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.

With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.

They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
 

EGFR-mutant NSCLC

The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.

The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.

If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.

The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
 

ALK-mutant NSCLC

For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.

In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.

If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
 

Other mutations

For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.

“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.

The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.

“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
 

Cost considerations

The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.

“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.

“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.

The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations, and alectinib or brigatinib are optimal first-line treatments for stage IV NSCLC with ALK fusions, according to new guidelines.

The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.

The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.

With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.

They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
 

EGFR-mutant NSCLC

The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.

The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.

If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.

The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
 

ALK-mutant NSCLC

For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.

In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.

If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
 

Other mutations

For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.

“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.

The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.

“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
 

Cost considerations

The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.

“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.

“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.

The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is now recommended for average-risk individuals starting at age 45 years, according to the American College of Gastroenterology’s updated guideline.

The starting age was previously 50 years for most patients. However, for Black patients, the starting age was lowered to 45 years in 2005.

The new guidance brings the ACG in line with recommendations of the American Cancer Society, which lowered the starting age to 45 years for average-risk individuals in 2018.

However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Multi-Specialty Task Force, and the American College of Physicians still recommend that CRC screening begin at the age of 50.

The new ACG guideline were published in March 2021 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. The last time they were updated was in 2009.

The ACG said that the move was made in light of reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in adults younger than 50.

“It has been estimated that [in the United States] persons born around 1990 have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer, compared with those born around 1950,” guideline author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues pointed out.

“The fact that other developed countries are reporting similar increases in early-onset CRC and birth-cohort effects suggests that the Western lifestyle (especially exemplified by the obesity epidemic) is a significant contributor,” the authors added.

The new ACG guideline emphasize the importance of initiating CRC screening for average-risk patients aged 50-75 years. “Given that current rates of screening uptake are close to 60% (57.9% ages 50-64 and 62.4% ages 50-75), expanding the population to be screened may reduce these rates as emphasis shifts to screening 45- to 49-year-olds at the expense of efforts to screen the unscreened 50- to 75-year-olds,” the authors commented.

Now, however, the guideline suggests that the decision to continue screening after age 75 should be individualized. It notes that the benefits of screening are limited for those who are not expected to live for another 7-10 years. For patients with a family history of CRC, the guideline authors recommended initiating CRC screening at the age of 40 for patients with one or two first-degree relatives with either CRC or advanced colorectal polyps.

They also recommend screening colonoscopy over any other screening modality if the first-degree relative is younger than 60 or if two or more first-degree relatives of any age have CRC or advanced colorectal polyps. For such patients, screening should be repeated every 5 years.

For screening average-risk individuals, either colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is recommended. If colonoscopy is used, it should be repeated every 10 years. FIT should be conducted on an annual basis.

This is somewhat in contrast to recent changes proposed by the American Gastroenterological Association. The AGA recommends greater use of noninvasive testing, such as with fecal occult blood tests, initially. It recommends that initial colonoscopy be used only for patients at high risk for CRC.

For individuals unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy or FIT, the ACG suggests flexible sigmoidoscopy, multitarget stool DNA testing, CT colonography, or colon capsule. Only colonoscopy is a single-step test; all other screening modalities require a follow-up colonoscopy if test results are positive.

“We recommend against the use of aspirin as a substitute for CRC screening,” the ACG members emphasized. Rather, they suggest that the use of low-dose aspirin be considered only for patients aged 50-69 years whose risk for cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years is at least 10% and who are at low risk for bleeding.

To reduce their risk for CRC, patients need to take aspirin for at least 10 years, they pointed out.
 

Quality indicators

For endoscopists who perform colonoscopy, the ACG recommended that all operators determine their individual cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and withdrawal times. They also recommended that endoscopists spend at least 6 minutes inspecting the mucosa during withdrawal and achieve a cecal intubation rate of at least 95% for all patients screened.

The ACG recommended remedial training for any provider whose adenoma detection rate is less than 25%.
 

Screening rates dropped during pandemic

The authors of the new recommendations also pointed out that, despite public health initiatives to boost CRC screening in the United States and the availability of multiple screening modalities, almost one-third of individuals who are eligible for CRC screening do not undergo screening.

Moreover, the proportion of individuals not being screened has reportedly increased during the pandemic. In one report, claims data for colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April. “Colorectal cancer screening rates must be optimized to reach the aspirational target of >80%,” the authors emphasized.

“A recommendation to be screened by a PCP [primary care provider] – who is known and trusted by the person – is clearly effective in raising participation,” they added.

Dr. Shaukat has served as a scientific consultant for Iterative Scopes and Freenome. Other ACG guideline authors reported numerous financial relationships.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is now recommended for average-risk individuals starting at age 45 years, according to the American College of Gastroenterology’s updated guideline.

The starting age was previously 50 years for most patients. However, for Black patients, the starting age was lowered to 45 years in 2005.

The new guidance brings the ACG in line with recommendations of the American Cancer Society, which lowered the starting age to 45 years for average-risk individuals in 2018.

However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Multi-Specialty Task Force, and the American College of Physicians still recommend that CRC screening begin at the age of 50.

The new ACG guideline were published in March 2021 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. The last time they were updated was in 2009.

The ACG said that the move was made in light of reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in adults younger than 50.

“It has been estimated that [in the United States] persons born around 1990 have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer, compared with those born around 1950,” guideline author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues pointed out.

“The fact that other developed countries are reporting similar increases in early-onset CRC and birth-cohort effects suggests that the Western lifestyle (especially exemplified by the obesity epidemic) is a significant contributor,” the authors added.

The new ACG guideline emphasize the importance of initiating CRC screening for average-risk patients aged 50-75 years. “Given that current rates of screening uptake are close to 60% (57.9% ages 50-64 and 62.4% ages 50-75), expanding the population to be screened may reduce these rates as emphasis shifts to screening 45- to 49-year-olds at the expense of efforts to screen the unscreened 50- to 75-year-olds,” the authors commented.

Now, however, the guideline suggests that the decision to continue screening after age 75 should be individualized. It notes that the benefits of screening are limited for those who are not expected to live for another 7-10 years. For patients with a family history of CRC, the guideline authors recommended initiating CRC screening at the age of 40 for patients with one or two first-degree relatives with either CRC or advanced colorectal polyps.

They also recommend screening colonoscopy over any other screening modality if the first-degree relative is younger than 60 or if two or more first-degree relatives of any age have CRC or advanced colorectal polyps. For such patients, screening should be repeated every 5 years.

For screening average-risk individuals, either colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is recommended. If colonoscopy is used, it should be repeated every 10 years. FIT should be conducted on an annual basis.

This is somewhat in contrast to recent changes proposed by the American Gastroenterological Association. The AGA recommends greater use of noninvasive testing, such as with fecal occult blood tests, initially. It recommends that initial colonoscopy be used only for patients at high risk for CRC.

For individuals unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy or FIT, the ACG suggests flexible sigmoidoscopy, multitarget stool DNA testing, CT colonography, or colon capsule. Only colonoscopy is a single-step test; all other screening modalities require a follow-up colonoscopy if test results are positive.

“We recommend against the use of aspirin as a substitute for CRC screening,” the ACG members emphasized. Rather, they suggest that the use of low-dose aspirin be considered only for patients aged 50-69 years whose risk for cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years is at least 10% and who are at low risk for bleeding.

To reduce their risk for CRC, patients need to take aspirin for at least 10 years, they pointed out.
 

Quality indicators

For endoscopists who perform colonoscopy, the ACG recommended that all operators determine their individual cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and withdrawal times. They also recommended that endoscopists spend at least 6 minutes inspecting the mucosa during withdrawal and achieve a cecal intubation rate of at least 95% for all patients screened.

The ACG recommended remedial training for any provider whose adenoma detection rate is less than 25%.
 

Screening rates dropped during pandemic

The authors of the new recommendations also pointed out that, despite public health initiatives to boost CRC screening in the United States and the availability of multiple screening modalities, almost one-third of individuals who are eligible for CRC screening do not undergo screening.

Moreover, the proportion of individuals not being screened has reportedly increased during the pandemic. In one report, claims data for colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April. “Colorectal cancer screening rates must be optimized to reach the aspirational target of >80%,” the authors emphasized.

“A recommendation to be screened by a PCP [primary care provider] – who is known and trusted by the person – is clearly effective in raising participation,” they added.

Dr. Shaukat has served as a scientific consultant for Iterative Scopes and Freenome. Other ACG guideline authors reported numerous financial relationships.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is now recommended for average-risk individuals starting at age 45 years, according to the American College of Gastroenterology’s updated guideline.

The starting age was previously 50 years for most patients. However, for Black patients, the starting age was lowered to 45 years in 2005.

The new guidance brings the ACG in line with recommendations of the American Cancer Society, which lowered the starting age to 45 years for average-risk individuals in 2018.

However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Multi-Specialty Task Force, and the American College of Physicians still recommend that CRC screening begin at the age of 50.

The new ACG guideline were published in March 2021 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. The last time they were updated was in 2009.

The ACG said that the move was made in light of reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in adults younger than 50.

“It has been estimated that [in the United States] persons born around 1990 have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer, compared with those born around 1950,” guideline author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues pointed out.

“The fact that other developed countries are reporting similar increases in early-onset CRC and birth-cohort effects suggests that the Western lifestyle (especially exemplified by the obesity epidemic) is a significant contributor,” the authors added.

The new ACG guideline emphasize the importance of initiating CRC screening for average-risk patients aged 50-75 years. “Given that current rates of screening uptake are close to 60% (57.9% ages 50-64 and 62.4% ages 50-75), expanding the population to be screened may reduce these rates as emphasis shifts to screening 45- to 49-year-olds at the expense of efforts to screen the unscreened 50- to 75-year-olds,” the authors commented.

Now, however, the guideline suggests that the decision to continue screening after age 75 should be individualized. It notes that the benefits of screening are limited for those who are not expected to live for another 7-10 years. For patients with a family history of CRC, the guideline authors recommended initiating CRC screening at the age of 40 for patients with one or two first-degree relatives with either CRC or advanced colorectal polyps.

They also recommend screening colonoscopy over any other screening modality if the first-degree relative is younger than 60 or if two or more first-degree relatives of any age have CRC or advanced colorectal polyps. For such patients, screening should be repeated every 5 years.

For screening average-risk individuals, either colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is recommended. If colonoscopy is used, it should be repeated every 10 years. FIT should be conducted on an annual basis.

This is somewhat in contrast to recent changes proposed by the American Gastroenterological Association. The AGA recommends greater use of noninvasive testing, such as with fecal occult blood tests, initially. It recommends that initial colonoscopy be used only for patients at high risk for CRC.

For individuals unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy or FIT, the ACG suggests flexible sigmoidoscopy, multitarget stool DNA testing, CT colonography, or colon capsule. Only colonoscopy is a single-step test; all other screening modalities require a follow-up colonoscopy if test results are positive.

“We recommend against the use of aspirin as a substitute for CRC screening,” the ACG members emphasized. Rather, they suggest that the use of low-dose aspirin be considered only for patients aged 50-69 years whose risk for cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years is at least 10% and who are at low risk for bleeding.

To reduce their risk for CRC, patients need to take aspirin for at least 10 years, they pointed out.
 

Quality indicators

For endoscopists who perform colonoscopy, the ACG recommended that all operators determine their individual cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and withdrawal times. They also recommended that endoscopists spend at least 6 minutes inspecting the mucosa during withdrawal and achieve a cecal intubation rate of at least 95% for all patients screened.

The ACG recommended remedial training for any provider whose adenoma detection rate is less than 25%.
 

Screening rates dropped during pandemic

The authors of the new recommendations also pointed out that, despite public health initiatives to boost CRC screening in the United States and the availability of multiple screening modalities, almost one-third of individuals who are eligible for CRC screening do not undergo screening.

Moreover, the proportion of individuals not being screened has reportedly increased during the pandemic. In one report, claims data for colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April. “Colorectal cancer screening rates must be optimized to reach the aspirational target of >80%,” the authors emphasized.

“A recommendation to be screened by a PCP [primary care provider] – who is known and trusted by the person – is clearly effective in raising participation,” they added.

Dr. Shaukat has served as a scientific consultant for Iterative Scopes and Freenome. Other ACG guideline authors reported numerous financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

New evidence-based recommendations provide guidance on when to give radiotherapy and chemotherapy to patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The guidelines, based on data from more than 100 studies, support offering intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Recommendations for chemotherapy vary according to disease stage, tumor size, number of nodes, and contraindications.

The guidelines, released jointly by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“For practicing oncologists in the United States, who often lack experience treating nasopharyngeal cancer, this guideline provides a useful, succinct summary of available evidence and expert recommendations. Nasopharyngeal cancer can be a technically and medically challenging disease to manage, and a multidisciplinary approach should be strongly encouraged,” said ASCO expert Randall J. Kimple, MD, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Much of the data guiding our treatment of these patients comes from endemic regions,” he continued. “How these data apply to patients in the U.S. remains a subject of ongoing study. Patients and providers should be encouraged to seek the opinion of a provider with expertise in the management of nasopharyngeal cancer.”

To compile “best practices” for treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the ASCO/CSCO expert panel conducted a literature search that included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2020. The panel identified 108 relevant studies and formulated their guidelines based on the evidence.
 

Recommendations

For all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the guidelines recommend intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image guidance. The recommended dose is 70 Gy in 33-35 fractions over 7 weeks.

“This has been the standard approach at most institutions that treat a sufficient number of nasopharyngeal cancer patients each year,” Dr. Kimple said.

When adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy, two approaches are recommended. The first is induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, and the second is chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.

“There are divergent opinions regarding the optimal approach in these patients, with slightly stronger data supporting the use of induction chemotherapy,” Dr. Kimple said. “For patients with earlier stage nasopharyngeal cancer (T1-2N1 or T2N0), chemotherapy can be offered, and is more strongly recommended for those with more advanced disease (T2N1, bulky disease, high EBV load).”

For patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the recommended regimen is cisplatin given either weekly (40 mg/m²) or triweekly (100 mg/m²).

“The stated goal is to achieve a cumulative cisplatin dose in excess of 200 mg/m² regardless of the approach taken. Several options were provided for patients with a contraindication to cisplatin,” Dr. Kimple said.

Patients with contraindications can receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m² triweekly), carboplatin (area under curve, 5-6 triweekly), oxaliplatin (70 mg/m² weekly), or fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, or tegafur).

For induction, the guidelines recommend platinum-based chemotherapy. Options include gemcitabine plus cisplatin, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin plus capecitabine, docetaxel plus cisplatin, and docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil.

“[T]here is less strong evidence regarding the optimal induction chemotherapy approach for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. Several possible regimens (doublet or triplet) are offered, with the use of platinum-based regimens being the common theme,” Dr. Kimple said.

For adjuvant chemotherapy, the guidelines recommend cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or carboplatin plus 5-fluorouracil.

The guidelines also suggest that clinicians take into account a patient’s other chronic conditions when formulating the treatment and follow-up plan.

“Patients with multiple chronic conditions pose a particular challenge to guideline-based care due to being commonly excluded from clinical trials,” Dr. Kimple said. “Shared decision-making plays a key role in the recommendations for patients with multiple chronic conditions. In addition, nasopharyngeal cancer patients often have long-term toxicity associated with their care, and, thus, the availability of expertise and resources in management of this disease is important.”

Dr. Kimple disclosed relationships with Galera Therapeutics, Mele Associates, and Guidepoint Global. The guideline authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the article.

New evidence-based recommendations provide guidance on when to give radiotherapy and chemotherapy to patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The guidelines, based on data from more than 100 studies, support offering intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Recommendations for chemotherapy vary according to disease stage, tumor size, number of nodes, and contraindications.

The guidelines, released jointly by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“For practicing oncologists in the United States, who often lack experience treating nasopharyngeal cancer, this guideline provides a useful, succinct summary of available evidence and expert recommendations. Nasopharyngeal cancer can be a technically and medically challenging disease to manage, and a multidisciplinary approach should be strongly encouraged,” said ASCO expert Randall J. Kimple, MD, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Much of the data guiding our treatment of these patients comes from endemic regions,” he continued. “How these data apply to patients in the U.S. remains a subject of ongoing study. Patients and providers should be encouraged to seek the opinion of a provider with expertise in the management of nasopharyngeal cancer.”

To compile “best practices” for treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the ASCO/CSCO expert panel conducted a literature search that included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2020. The panel identified 108 relevant studies and formulated their guidelines based on the evidence.
 

Recommendations

For all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the guidelines recommend intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image guidance. The recommended dose is 70 Gy in 33-35 fractions over 7 weeks.

“This has been the standard approach at most institutions that treat a sufficient number of nasopharyngeal cancer patients each year,” Dr. Kimple said.

When adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy, two approaches are recommended. The first is induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, and the second is chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.

“There are divergent opinions regarding the optimal approach in these patients, with slightly stronger data supporting the use of induction chemotherapy,” Dr. Kimple said. “For patients with earlier stage nasopharyngeal cancer (T1-2N1 or T2N0), chemotherapy can be offered, and is more strongly recommended for those with more advanced disease (T2N1, bulky disease, high EBV load).”

For patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the recommended regimen is cisplatin given either weekly (40 mg/m²) or triweekly (100 mg/m²).

“The stated goal is to achieve a cumulative cisplatin dose in excess of 200 mg/m² regardless of the approach taken. Several options were provided for patients with a contraindication to cisplatin,” Dr. Kimple said.

Patients with contraindications can receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m² triweekly), carboplatin (area under curve, 5-6 triweekly), oxaliplatin (70 mg/m² weekly), or fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, or tegafur).

For induction, the guidelines recommend platinum-based chemotherapy. Options include gemcitabine plus cisplatin, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin plus capecitabine, docetaxel plus cisplatin, and docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil.

“[T]here is less strong evidence regarding the optimal induction chemotherapy approach for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. Several possible regimens (doublet or triplet) are offered, with the use of platinum-based regimens being the common theme,” Dr. Kimple said.

For adjuvant chemotherapy, the guidelines recommend cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or carboplatin plus 5-fluorouracil.

The guidelines also suggest that clinicians take into account a patient’s other chronic conditions when formulating the treatment and follow-up plan.

“Patients with multiple chronic conditions pose a particular challenge to guideline-based care due to being commonly excluded from clinical trials,” Dr. Kimple said. “Shared decision-making plays a key role in the recommendations for patients with multiple chronic conditions. In addition, nasopharyngeal cancer patients often have long-term toxicity associated with their care, and, thus, the availability of expertise and resources in management of this disease is important.”

Dr. Kimple disclosed relationships with Galera Therapeutics, Mele Associates, and Guidepoint Global. The guideline authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the article.

New evidence-based recommendations provide guidance on when to give radiotherapy and chemotherapy to patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The guidelines, based on data from more than 100 studies, support offering intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Recommendations for chemotherapy vary according to disease stage, tumor size, number of nodes, and contraindications.

The guidelines, released jointly by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“For practicing oncologists in the United States, who often lack experience treating nasopharyngeal cancer, this guideline provides a useful, succinct summary of available evidence and expert recommendations. Nasopharyngeal cancer can be a technically and medically challenging disease to manage, and a multidisciplinary approach should be strongly encouraged,” said ASCO expert Randall J. Kimple, MD, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Much of the data guiding our treatment of these patients comes from endemic regions,” he continued. “How these data apply to patients in the U.S. remains a subject of ongoing study. Patients and providers should be encouraged to seek the opinion of a provider with expertise in the management of nasopharyngeal cancer.”

To compile “best practices” for treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the ASCO/CSCO expert panel conducted a literature search that included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2020. The panel identified 108 relevant studies and formulated their guidelines based on the evidence.
 

Recommendations

For all patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the guidelines recommend intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image guidance. The recommended dose is 70 Gy in 33-35 fractions over 7 weeks.

“This has been the standard approach at most institutions that treat a sufficient number of nasopharyngeal cancer patients each year,” Dr. Kimple said.

When adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy, two approaches are recommended. The first is induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, and the second is chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.

“There are divergent opinions regarding the optimal approach in these patients, with slightly stronger data supporting the use of induction chemotherapy,” Dr. Kimple said. “For patients with earlier stage nasopharyngeal cancer (T1-2N1 or T2N0), chemotherapy can be offered, and is more strongly recommended for those with more advanced disease (T2N1, bulky disease, high EBV load).”

For patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the recommended regimen is cisplatin given either weekly (40 mg/m²) or triweekly (100 mg/m²).

“The stated goal is to achieve a cumulative cisplatin dose in excess of 200 mg/m² regardless of the approach taken. Several options were provided for patients with a contraindication to cisplatin,” Dr. Kimple said.

Patients with contraindications can receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m² triweekly), carboplatin (area under curve, 5-6 triweekly), oxaliplatin (70 mg/m² weekly), or fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, or tegafur).

For induction, the guidelines recommend platinum-based chemotherapy. Options include gemcitabine plus cisplatin, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin plus capecitabine, docetaxel plus cisplatin, and docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil.

“[T]here is less strong evidence regarding the optimal induction chemotherapy approach for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. Several possible regimens (doublet or triplet) are offered, with the use of platinum-based regimens being the common theme,” Dr. Kimple said.

For adjuvant chemotherapy, the guidelines recommend cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or carboplatin plus 5-fluorouracil.

The guidelines also suggest that clinicians take into account a patient’s other chronic conditions when formulating the treatment and follow-up plan.

“Patients with multiple chronic conditions pose a particular challenge to guideline-based care due to being commonly excluded from clinical trials,” Dr. Kimple said. “Shared decision-making plays a key role in the recommendations for patients with multiple chronic conditions. In addition, nasopharyngeal cancer patients often have long-term toxicity associated with their care, and, thus, the availability of expertise and resources in management of this disease is important.”

Dr. Kimple disclosed relationships with Galera Therapeutics, Mele Associates, and Guidepoint Global. The guideline authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the article.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is planning to update its breast cancer screening guidelines, which were last issued in 2016. For transparency, it has released the draft research plan it will use for formulating the update, and this draft plan is open for comment until Feb. 17.

However, an expert in breast screening has taken issue with the whole plan.

Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and founder of the Breast Imaging Division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, argues that previous USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening “have been based on flawed analyses of scientific data” and the research plan, as outlined, perpetuates this.

He has also objected, yet again, to the USPSTF panel not having any experts in breast screening on the panel.

Writing in a commentary on Aunt Minnie, a radiology website, he warns about the dangers of not listening to experts: “The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the tragic consequences that result from ignoring science, evidence, and the analysis and advice of experts while being guided by inexpert advice.”
 

Controversy over previous guidelines

The current USPSTF guidelines on breast cancer screening, which were issued in 2016, were largely unchanged from the previous guidelines that had been issued in 2009. They recommended mammography screening every 2 years for women 50-74 years of age but said that women aged 40-49 should make individual decisions about screening in partnership with their doctors.

The guidance on younger women was met with severe criticism from many experts, as previously reported by this news organization, and the every-2-year interval has also been questioned.

The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40.

In the update the USPSTF is now planning, it has an opportunity to “revisit the group’s flawed decision in 2009” about not recommending screening for women in their 40s, argues Dr. Kopans.  

But to do that, a number of factors need to be addressed to present a fair and impartial review of the science and evidence in favor of breast screening, he continues, while worrying the draft plan, as currently outlined, will not do so.

One big problem, he argues, is that USPSTF, in its draft plan, has not included statistical models from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network to project the potential outcomes of various screening protocols. These NCI/CISNET models all predict that the most lives are saved by annual screening starting at age 40, he points out.

Without these models, the USPSTF will be “guessing in their predictions,” he argues.

Second, even though a reduction in advanced-stage disease is a potentially useful “surrogate endpoint,” Dr. Kopans points out that it is still crucial to remember that women diagnosed at all stages of breast cancer die of the disease. “It has been shown that reducing the size of cancers within stages is also a major benefit from screening that reduces deaths,” he says.

Third, he contends in his commentary that there is a “false claim that the background incidence of breast cancer has not increased over time.” Dr. Kopans says this has been the primary source of misinformation that has been used to promote “the false concepts of massive overdiagnosis” as well as a “false claim that there has not been a reduction in advanced cancers.”

To emphasize his point, Dr. Kopans explains that data clearly demonstrate that the baseline incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen by 1%-1.3% per year, going back at least 80 years. This increase predates screening, which didn’t really begin until the mid-1980s.

“If the correct increasing baseline is used, not only is there no apparent ‘overdiagnosis’ of invasive cancers, but it appears that there has been a major reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers,” he writes. “By using the correct baseline incidence and extrapolation, it is also clear that there has been a major reduction in the rate of advanced cancers.”

To date, there have not been any randomized controlled trials comparing screening intervals (for example, annual vs. every second or third year). But based on the CISNET models, Dr. Kopans emphasized that annual screening is estimated to provide the greatest reduction in deaths. “All women ages 40-74 should be encouraged to be screened every year,” he says.

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