News

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main cause of premature death and disability in the general population, and according to the World Health Organization, the incidence of CVD is increasing throughout the world. Conventional risk factors that contribute to the occurrence and worsening of CVD have been identified and widely studied. They include high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity. Despite the introduction of measures to prevent and treat these risk factors with lipid-lowering drugs, antihypertensives, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants, the mortality rate related to CVD remains high.
 

Despite the effectiveness of many currently available treatment options, there are still significant gaps in risk assessment and treatment of CVD.

In the past few years, new coronary risk factors have emerged. They are detailed in an editorial published in The American Journal of Medicine that describes their role and their impact on our cardiovascular health.
 

Systemic inflammation

The new coronary risk factors include the following diseases characterized by systemic inflammation:

• Gout – Among patients who have experienced a recent flare of gout, the probability of experiencing an acute cardiovascular event such as a myocardial infarction or stroke is increased.
• Rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematous – Patients with one or both of these conditions are at higher odds of experiencing concomitant premature and extremely premature coronary artery disease.
• Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis) – Patients with this disease have increased odds of developing coronary artery disease.
• Psoriasis – Patients with psoriasis are up to 50% more likely to develop CVD.

Maternal and childhood factors

The following maternal and childhood factors are associated with an increased risk of developing coronary artery disease: gestational diabetes; preeclampsia; delivering a child of low birth weight; preterm delivery; and premature or surgical menopause. The factor or factors that increase the risk of coronary artery disease associated with each of these conditions are not known but may be the result of increased cytokine and oxidative stress.

An unusual and yet unexplained association has been observed between migraine headaches with aura in women and incident CVD.

Also of interest is the association of early life trauma and the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in young and middle-aged individuals who have a history of myocardial infarction.

Transgender patients who present for gender-affirming care are also at increased cardiovascular risk. Among these patients, the increase in coronary artery disease risk may be related to high rates of anxiety and depression.
 

Environmental factors

Low socioeconomic status has emerged as a risk factor. Increased psychosocial stressors, limited educational and economic opportunities, and lack of peer influence favoring healthier lifestyle choices may be causative elements leading to enhanced coronary artery disease among individuals with low socioeconomic living conditions.

Air pollution was estimated to have caused 9 million deaths worldwide in 2019, with 62% due to CVD and 31.7% to coronary artery disease. Severely polluted environmental aerosols contain several toxic metals, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. Transient exposure to various air pollutants may trigger the onset of an acute coronary syndrome.
 

Lifestyle factors

Long working hours by patients who have experienced a first myocardial infarction increase the risk for a recurrent event, possibly because of prolonged exposure to work stressors.

Skipping breakfast has been linked to increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Long-term consumption of drinks containing sugar and artificial sweeteners has also been associated with increased cardiovascular mortality.

Recognizing the presence of one or more of these new risk factors could help prompt and improve behaviors for reducing more conventional CV risk factors to a minimum.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main cause of premature death and disability in the general population, and according to the World Health Organization, the incidence of CVD is increasing throughout the world. Conventional risk factors that contribute to the occurrence and worsening of CVD have been identified and widely studied. They include high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity. Despite the introduction of measures to prevent and treat these risk factors with lipid-lowering drugs, antihypertensives, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants, the mortality rate related to CVD remains high.
 

Despite the effectiveness of many currently available treatment options, there are still significant gaps in risk assessment and treatment of CVD.

In the past few years, new coronary risk factors have emerged. They are detailed in an editorial published in The American Journal of Medicine that describes their role and their impact on our cardiovascular health.
 

Systemic inflammation

The new coronary risk factors include the following diseases characterized by systemic inflammation:

• Gout – Among patients who have experienced a recent flare of gout, the probability of experiencing an acute cardiovascular event such as a myocardial infarction or stroke is increased.
• Rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematous – Patients with one or both of these conditions are at higher odds of experiencing concomitant premature and extremely premature coronary artery disease.
• Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis) – Patients with this disease have increased odds of developing coronary artery disease.
• Psoriasis – Patients with psoriasis are up to 50% more likely to develop CVD.

Maternal and childhood factors

The following maternal and childhood factors are associated with an increased risk of developing coronary artery disease: gestational diabetes; preeclampsia; delivering a child of low birth weight; preterm delivery; and premature or surgical menopause. The factor or factors that increase the risk of coronary artery disease associated with each of these conditions are not known but may be the result of increased cytokine and oxidative stress.

An unusual and yet unexplained association has been observed between migraine headaches with aura in women and incident CVD.

Also of interest is the association of early life trauma and the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in young and middle-aged individuals who have a history of myocardial infarction.

Transgender patients who present for gender-affirming care are also at increased cardiovascular risk. Among these patients, the increase in coronary artery disease risk may be related to high rates of anxiety and depression.
 

Environmental factors

Low socioeconomic status has emerged as a risk factor. Increased psychosocial stressors, limited educational and economic opportunities, and lack of peer influence favoring healthier lifestyle choices may be causative elements leading to enhanced coronary artery disease among individuals with low socioeconomic living conditions.

Air pollution was estimated to have caused 9 million deaths worldwide in 2019, with 62% due to CVD and 31.7% to coronary artery disease. Severely polluted environmental aerosols contain several toxic metals, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. Transient exposure to various air pollutants may trigger the onset of an acute coronary syndrome.
 

Lifestyle factors

Long working hours by patients who have experienced a first myocardial infarction increase the risk for a recurrent event, possibly because of prolonged exposure to work stressors.

Skipping breakfast has been linked to increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Long-term consumption of drinks containing sugar and artificial sweeteners has also been associated with increased cardiovascular mortality.

Recognizing the presence of one or more of these new risk factors could help prompt and improve behaviors for reducing more conventional CV risk factors to a minimum.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main cause of premature death and disability in the general population, and according to the World Health Organization, the incidence of CVD is increasing throughout the world. Conventional risk factors that contribute to the occurrence and worsening of CVD have been identified and widely studied. They include high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity. Despite the introduction of measures to prevent and treat these risk factors with lipid-lowering drugs, antihypertensives, antiplatelet drugs, and anticoagulants, the mortality rate related to CVD remains high.
 

Despite the effectiveness of many currently available treatment options, there are still significant gaps in risk assessment and treatment of CVD.

In the past few years, new coronary risk factors have emerged. They are detailed in an editorial published in The American Journal of Medicine that describes their role and their impact on our cardiovascular health.
 

Systemic inflammation

The new coronary risk factors include the following diseases characterized by systemic inflammation:

• Gout – Among patients who have experienced a recent flare of gout, the probability of experiencing an acute cardiovascular event such as a myocardial infarction or stroke is increased.
• Rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematous – Patients with one or both of these conditions are at higher odds of experiencing concomitant premature and extremely premature coronary artery disease.
• Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis) – Patients with this disease have increased odds of developing coronary artery disease.
• Psoriasis – Patients with psoriasis are up to 50% more likely to develop CVD.

Maternal and childhood factors

The following maternal and childhood factors are associated with an increased risk of developing coronary artery disease: gestational diabetes; preeclampsia; delivering a child of low birth weight; preterm delivery; and premature or surgical menopause. The factor or factors that increase the risk of coronary artery disease associated with each of these conditions are not known but may be the result of increased cytokine and oxidative stress.

An unusual and yet unexplained association has been observed between migraine headaches with aura in women and incident CVD.

Also of interest is the association of early life trauma and the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in young and middle-aged individuals who have a history of myocardial infarction.

Transgender patients who present for gender-affirming care are also at increased cardiovascular risk. Among these patients, the increase in coronary artery disease risk may be related to high rates of anxiety and depression.
 

Environmental factors

Low socioeconomic status has emerged as a risk factor. Increased psychosocial stressors, limited educational and economic opportunities, and lack of peer influence favoring healthier lifestyle choices may be causative elements leading to enhanced coronary artery disease among individuals with low socioeconomic living conditions.

Air pollution was estimated to have caused 9 million deaths worldwide in 2019, with 62% due to CVD and 31.7% to coronary artery disease. Severely polluted environmental aerosols contain several toxic metals, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. Transient exposure to various air pollutants may trigger the onset of an acute coronary syndrome.
 

Lifestyle factors

Long working hours by patients who have experienced a first myocardial infarction increase the risk for a recurrent event, possibly because of prolonged exposure to work stressors.

Skipping breakfast has been linked to increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Long-term consumption of drinks containing sugar and artificial sweeteners has also been associated with increased cardiovascular mortality.

Recognizing the presence of one or more of these new risk factors could help prompt and improve behaviors for reducing more conventional CV risk factors to a minimum.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

The painful paused and repaused rollout of the new Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is now halted as the VA announces a “reset.” The decision applies to all planned deployments. An exception is the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Chicago, the only fully integrated VA and US Department of Defense (DoD) health care system, which is expected go live in March 2024 as planned. The DoD rollout of its Cerner EHR is further along and expected to be completed in 2024.

The new plan is to redirect resources and “prioritize improvements” at the 5 sites currently using the new EHR: Spokane VA Health Care System, VA Walla Walla Health Care, Roseburg VA Health Care System, VA Southern Oregon Health Care, and VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Additional deployments will not be scheduled, the VA says, until it is confident that the new EHR is highly functioning at the current sites and ready to deliver at future sites, as demonstrated by “clear improvements” in the clinician and veteran experience, sustained high performance and high reliability.

“For the past few years, we’ve tried to fix this plane while flying it—and that hasn’t delivered the results that veterans or our staff deserve,” said Neil Evans, MD, acting program executive director at the Electronic Health Record Modernization Integration Office. “This reset changes that. We are going to take the time necessary to get this right for veterans and VA clinicians alike, and that means focusing our resources solely on improving the EHR at the sites where it is currently in use, and improving its fit for VA more broadly. In doing so, we will enhance the EHR for both current and future users, paving the way for successful future deployments.”  

The various EHR rollouts around the country have been bumpy from the beginning, operating by fits and starts as new problems surfaced and were addressed. To be fair, the whole implementation process only started in 2020 (and deployed at the first VA hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic), but in that time, the VA has had to, in its own words, “revise the timeline” again and again. The Boise VA Medical Center, for instance, was originally scheduled to go live June 25, 2022, then a month later—then 2023.

The VA Office of the Inspector General published 3 reports last year that found significant issues, including improperly routed clinical orders. VA Secretary Denis McDonough announced last July that the VA would delay EHR deployments until January 2023 to ensure that the system’s issues had been resolved. “During VA’s subsequent investigation at our current sites,” he said, “several additional technical and system issues were identified—including challenges with performance, such as latency and slowness, problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders.”

In February, Ken Glueck, executive vice president of Oracle, wrote a blog post that was both apologia and explanation. Modernization, he said, “doesn’t come with a magic wand and there’s no easy button.”

After the DoD moved to Cerner for a new EHR system, the VA decided to follow suit. The goal was to create a “seamless, longitudinal record”—and that was the beginning of the largest health IT modernization project in history, Glueck said. And, although he didn’t mention it, the beginning of one of the VA’s biggest headaches. The problem, Glueck wrote, was that the new project involved “standardizing procedures and workflows that may have been different across 130 VistA implementations at largely autonomous VA medical centers.”

In June 2022—a significant month in the whole rollout process—Cerner was acquired by Oracle. By Glueck’s lights, that meant the VA “now has essentially 2 vendors for the price of one—one with extensive clinical expertise and one with extensive engineering expertise.”

Oracle, he said, “is hard at work to stabilize and improve performance; make fixes to functionality and design issues; improve training and build a better user experience.” He noted that significant improvements to the system’s capacity and performance have included reducing the most severe outage incidents by 67%.

In a recent statement, House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) and Technology Modernization Subcommittee Chairman Matt Rosendale (R-MT) said, “We support Secretary McDonough’s decision in the strongest possible terms. The best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging, and we’re encouraged that VA and Oracle Cerner have finally realized that.”

VA and Oracle Cerner are currently working toward an amended contract that will "increase Oracle Cerner’s accountability to deliver a high-functioning, high-reliability, world-class EHR system,” the VA says. As part of the re-set, the VA also will work with Congress on resource requirements. The VA estimates FY 2023 costs will be reduced by $400 million. 

The painful paused and repaused rollout of the new Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is now halted as the VA announces a “reset.” The decision applies to all planned deployments. An exception is the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Chicago, the only fully integrated VA and US Department of Defense (DoD) health care system, which is expected go live in March 2024 as planned. The DoD rollout of its Cerner EHR is further along and expected to be completed in 2024.

The new plan is to redirect resources and “prioritize improvements” at the 5 sites currently using the new EHR: Spokane VA Health Care System, VA Walla Walla Health Care, Roseburg VA Health Care System, VA Southern Oregon Health Care, and VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Additional deployments will not be scheduled, the VA says, until it is confident that the new EHR is highly functioning at the current sites and ready to deliver at future sites, as demonstrated by “clear improvements” in the clinician and veteran experience, sustained high performance and high reliability.

“For the past few years, we’ve tried to fix this plane while flying it—and that hasn’t delivered the results that veterans or our staff deserve,” said Neil Evans, MD, acting program executive director at the Electronic Health Record Modernization Integration Office. “This reset changes that. We are going to take the time necessary to get this right for veterans and VA clinicians alike, and that means focusing our resources solely on improving the EHR at the sites where it is currently in use, and improving its fit for VA more broadly. In doing so, we will enhance the EHR for both current and future users, paving the way for successful future deployments.”  

The various EHR rollouts around the country have been bumpy from the beginning, operating by fits and starts as new problems surfaced and were addressed. To be fair, the whole implementation process only started in 2020 (and deployed at the first VA hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic), but in that time, the VA has had to, in its own words, “revise the timeline” again and again. The Boise VA Medical Center, for instance, was originally scheduled to go live June 25, 2022, then a month later—then 2023.

The VA Office of the Inspector General published 3 reports last year that found significant issues, including improperly routed clinical orders. VA Secretary Denis McDonough announced last July that the VA would delay EHR deployments until January 2023 to ensure that the system’s issues had been resolved. “During VA’s subsequent investigation at our current sites,” he said, “several additional technical and system issues were identified—including challenges with performance, such as latency and slowness, problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders.”

In February, Ken Glueck, executive vice president of Oracle, wrote a blog post that was both apologia and explanation. Modernization, he said, “doesn’t come with a magic wand and there’s no easy button.”

After the DoD moved to Cerner for a new EHR system, the VA decided to follow suit. The goal was to create a “seamless, longitudinal record”—and that was the beginning of the largest health IT modernization project in history, Glueck said. And, although he didn’t mention it, the beginning of one of the VA’s biggest headaches. The problem, Glueck wrote, was that the new project involved “standardizing procedures and workflows that may have been different across 130 VistA implementations at largely autonomous VA medical centers.”

In June 2022—a significant month in the whole rollout process—Cerner was acquired by Oracle. By Glueck’s lights, that meant the VA “now has essentially 2 vendors for the price of one—one with extensive clinical expertise and one with extensive engineering expertise.”

Oracle, he said, “is hard at work to stabilize and improve performance; make fixes to functionality and design issues; improve training and build a better user experience.” He noted that significant improvements to the system’s capacity and performance have included reducing the most severe outage incidents by 67%.

In a recent statement, House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) and Technology Modernization Subcommittee Chairman Matt Rosendale (R-MT) said, “We support Secretary McDonough’s decision in the strongest possible terms. The best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging, and we’re encouraged that VA and Oracle Cerner have finally realized that.”

VA and Oracle Cerner are currently working toward an amended contract that will "increase Oracle Cerner’s accountability to deliver a high-functioning, high-reliability, world-class EHR system,” the VA says. As part of the re-set, the VA also will work with Congress on resource requirements. The VA estimates FY 2023 costs will be reduced by $400 million. 

The painful paused and repaused rollout of the new Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is now halted as the VA announces a “reset.” The decision applies to all planned deployments. An exception is the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Chicago, the only fully integrated VA and US Department of Defense (DoD) health care system, which is expected go live in March 2024 as planned. The DoD rollout of its Cerner EHR is further along and expected to be completed in 2024.

The new plan is to redirect resources and “prioritize improvements” at the 5 sites currently using the new EHR: Spokane VA Health Care System, VA Walla Walla Health Care, Roseburg VA Health Care System, VA Southern Oregon Health Care, and VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Additional deployments will not be scheduled, the VA says, until it is confident that the new EHR is highly functioning at the current sites and ready to deliver at future sites, as demonstrated by “clear improvements” in the clinician and veteran experience, sustained high performance and high reliability.

“For the past few years, we’ve tried to fix this plane while flying it—and that hasn’t delivered the results that veterans or our staff deserve,” said Neil Evans, MD, acting program executive director at the Electronic Health Record Modernization Integration Office. “This reset changes that. We are going to take the time necessary to get this right for veterans and VA clinicians alike, and that means focusing our resources solely on improving the EHR at the sites where it is currently in use, and improving its fit for VA more broadly. In doing so, we will enhance the EHR for both current and future users, paving the way for successful future deployments.”  

The various EHR rollouts around the country have been bumpy from the beginning, operating by fits and starts as new problems surfaced and were addressed. To be fair, the whole implementation process only started in 2020 (and deployed at the first VA hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic), but in that time, the VA has had to, in its own words, “revise the timeline” again and again. The Boise VA Medical Center, for instance, was originally scheduled to go live June 25, 2022, then a month later—then 2023.

The VA Office of the Inspector General published 3 reports last year that found significant issues, including improperly routed clinical orders. VA Secretary Denis McDonough announced last July that the VA would delay EHR deployments until January 2023 to ensure that the system’s issues had been resolved. “During VA’s subsequent investigation at our current sites,” he said, “several additional technical and system issues were identified—including challenges with performance, such as latency and slowness, problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders.”

In February, Ken Glueck, executive vice president of Oracle, wrote a blog post that was both apologia and explanation. Modernization, he said, “doesn’t come with a magic wand and there’s no easy button.”

After the DoD moved to Cerner for a new EHR system, the VA decided to follow suit. The goal was to create a “seamless, longitudinal record”—and that was the beginning of the largest health IT modernization project in history, Glueck said. And, although he didn’t mention it, the beginning of one of the VA’s biggest headaches. The problem, Glueck wrote, was that the new project involved “standardizing procedures and workflows that may have been different across 130 VistA implementations at largely autonomous VA medical centers.”

In June 2022—a significant month in the whole rollout process—Cerner was acquired by Oracle. By Glueck’s lights, that meant the VA “now has essentially 2 vendors for the price of one—one with extensive clinical expertise and one with extensive engineering expertise.”

Oracle, he said, “is hard at work to stabilize and improve performance; make fixes to functionality and design issues; improve training and build a better user experience.” He noted that significant improvements to the system’s capacity and performance have included reducing the most severe outage incidents by 67%.

In a recent statement, House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) and Technology Modernization Subcommittee Chairman Matt Rosendale (R-MT) said, “We support Secretary McDonough’s decision in the strongest possible terms. The best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging, and we’re encouraged that VA and Oracle Cerner have finally realized that.”

VA and Oracle Cerner are currently working toward an amended contract that will "increase Oracle Cerner’s accountability to deliver a high-functioning, high-reliability, world-class EHR system,” the VA says. As part of the re-set, the VA also will work with Congress on resource requirements. The VA estimates FY 2023 costs will be reduced by $400 million. 

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

BOSTON – An experimental neural cell therapy is safe and led to greater than 90% reduction in seizures in two patients with drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) in the first-in-human test of the novel therapy.

“It is notable that the early significant seizure reduction observed in this study appears to be durable in these first two patients treated with a single administration of NRTX-1001,” principal investigator Robert Beach, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

“It is also encouraging that the first patient has been free from disabling seizures from the second month on and has shown improved memory performance on multiple cognitive tests, as memory problems can be an issue for individuals with drug-resistant MTLE,” said Dr. Beach, chief of epilepsy and professor of neurology at State University of New York, Syracuse.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Restorative not destructive

NRTX-1001 therapy (Neurona Therapeutics) is a one-time dose of an injectable suspension of high-purity inhibitory interneurons that secrete the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The interneurons are intended to integrate and innervate on-target, providing long-term GABAergic inhibition to repair hyperexcitable neural networks.

Preclinical work in animal models of epilepsy has provided strong support for both the safety and the efficacy of boosting inhibition in the seizure focus using implanted human inhibitory interneurons.

This therapy is “potentially restorative instead of just destructive, like epilepsy surgery,” study investigator David Spencer, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said during a press briefing.

In the first two patients, the cells were implanted in the seizure focus using MRI guidance through a tiny opening in the back of the skull. The patients recovered overnight and went home the next day.

The first patient had a 9-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy and was averaging 30 seizures per month at baseline. Testing confirmed that the seizures were coming from a single focus on the right temporal lobe. The implant was uncomplicated, and the cells were delivered to the seizure focus on target.

To date, there have been no serious or unexpected adverse events from the implant. At 9 months of follow-up the patient has had a 93% reduction in seizures overall and is free of all seizures causing impairment of awareness, “which was the most debilitating seizure type for this patient,” Dr. Spencer noted.

Studies of brain metabolism in the area of the implant have shown favorable markers of increased inhibition and decreased inflammation. Cognitive testing at 6 months showed no worsening of memory function or cognition. And, in fact, there were some mild improvements, he said.

The second patient had an 8-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy, averaging 14 focal seizures per month at baseline. Testing also confirmed seizure onset in a single focus in the right temporal lobe and the cells were again implanted without complication on target. Five months after treatment, the patient has had a 94% reduction in seizures and no serious adverse events.
 

‘Hot off the press’

Epilepsy affects about 3.5 million people in the United States. About two-thirds of people with epilepsy get good control of their seizures using antiseizure medication.

For seizures that are uncontrolled with medication, identifying the seizure focus and removing it surgically can often result in seizure freedom in a high proportion of patients. But not all patients are candidates for epilepsy surgery, and for those who can have it the surgery itself carries some risks, including diminished cognition and memory.

“While these are still early days, we’re encouraged by the positive safety findings so far, and the early seizure responses” with neural cell therapy, Dr. Spencer told reporters.

Given the positive results in the first two patients, additional patients will be treated “with careful safety review all along the way. This is going to be rolling out over the next several years,” Dr. Spencer said. Patient recruitment is underway at epilepsy centers across the United States.

Briefing moderator Natalia Rost, MD, MPH, chair of the AAN science committee, said, “This is a true example of emerging science. It’s literally hot off the press,” and the preliminary results are “very promising.”

Dr. Rost, chief of the stroke division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, noted that this type of cell therapy implant is “very novel and representative of where the field is moving, when no traditional solutions exist for common neurological problems.” 

The study was sponsored by Neurona Therapeutics and funded in part by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Beach and Dr. Spencer report no relevant financial relationships. Several investigators are employees of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Rost reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – An experimental neural cell therapy is safe and led to greater than 90% reduction in seizures in two patients with drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) in the first-in-human test of the novel therapy.

“It is notable that the early significant seizure reduction observed in this study appears to be durable in these first two patients treated with a single administration of NRTX-1001,” principal investigator Robert Beach, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

“It is also encouraging that the first patient has been free from disabling seizures from the second month on and has shown improved memory performance on multiple cognitive tests, as memory problems can be an issue for individuals with drug-resistant MTLE,” said Dr. Beach, chief of epilepsy and professor of neurology at State University of New York, Syracuse.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Restorative not destructive

NRTX-1001 therapy (Neurona Therapeutics) is a one-time dose of an injectable suspension of high-purity inhibitory interneurons that secrete the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The interneurons are intended to integrate and innervate on-target, providing long-term GABAergic inhibition to repair hyperexcitable neural networks.

Preclinical work in animal models of epilepsy has provided strong support for both the safety and the efficacy of boosting inhibition in the seizure focus using implanted human inhibitory interneurons.

This therapy is “potentially restorative instead of just destructive, like epilepsy surgery,” study investigator David Spencer, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said during a press briefing.

In the first two patients, the cells were implanted in the seizure focus using MRI guidance through a tiny opening in the back of the skull. The patients recovered overnight and went home the next day.

The first patient had a 9-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy and was averaging 30 seizures per month at baseline. Testing confirmed that the seizures were coming from a single focus on the right temporal lobe. The implant was uncomplicated, and the cells were delivered to the seizure focus on target.

To date, there have been no serious or unexpected adverse events from the implant. At 9 months of follow-up the patient has had a 93% reduction in seizures overall and is free of all seizures causing impairment of awareness, “which was the most debilitating seizure type for this patient,” Dr. Spencer noted.

Studies of brain metabolism in the area of the implant have shown favorable markers of increased inhibition and decreased inflammation. Cognitive testing at 6 months showed no worsening of memory function or cognition. And, in fact, there were some mild improvements, he said.

The second patient had an 8-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy, averaging 14 focal seizures per month at baseline. Testing also confirmed seizure onset in a single focus in the right temporal lobe and the cells were again implanted without complication on target. Five months after treatment, the patient has had a 94% reduction in seizures and no serious adverse events.
 

‘Hot off the press’

Epilepsy affects about 3.5 million people in the United States. About two-thirds of people with epilepsy get good control of their seizures using antiseizure medication.

For seizures that are uncontrolled with medication, identifying the seizure focus and removing it surgically can often result in seizure freedom in a high proportion of patients. But not all patients are candidates for epilepsy surgery, and for those who can have it the surgery itself carries some risks, including diminished cognition and memory.

“While these are still early days, we’re encouraged by the positive safety findings so far, and the early seizure responses” with neural cell therapy, Dr. Spencer told reporters.

Given the positive results in the first two patients, additional patients will be treated “with careful safety review all along the way. This is going to be rolling out over the next several years,” Dr. Spencer said. Patient recruitment is underway at epilepsy centers across the United States.

Briefing moderator Natalia Rost, MD, MPH, chair of the AAN science committee, said, “This is a true example of emerging science. It’s literally hot off the press,” and the preliminary results are “very promising.”

Dr. Rost, chief of the stroke division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, noted that this type of cell therapy implant is “very novel and representative of where the field is moving, when no traditional solutions exist for common neurological problems.” 

The study was sponsored by Neurona Therapeutics and funded in part by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Beach and Dr. Spencer report no relevant financial relationships. Several investigators are employees of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Rost reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – An experimental neural cell therapy is safe and led to greater than 90% reduction in seizures in two patients with drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) in the first-in-human test of the novel therapy.

“It is notable that the early significant seizure reduction observed in this study appears to be durable in these first two patients treated with a single administration of NRTX-1001,” principal investigator Robert Beach, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

“It is also encouraging that the first patient has been free from disabling seizures from the second month on and has shown improved memory performance on multiple cognitive tests, as memory problems can be an issue for individuals with drug-resistant MTLE,” said Dr. Beach, chief of epilepsy and professor of neurology at State University of New York, Syracuse.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Restorative not destructive

NRTX-1001 therapy (Neurona Therapeutics) is a one-time dose of an injectable suspension of high-purity inhibitory interneurons that secrete the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The interneurons are intended to integrate and innervate on-target, providing long-term GABAergic inhibition to repair hyperexcitable neural networks.

Preclinical work in animal models of epilepsy has provided strong support for both the safety and the efficacy of boosting inhibition in the seizure focus using implanted human inhibitory interneurons.

This therapy is “potentially restorative instead of just destructive, like epilepsy surgery,” study investigator David Spencer, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said during a press briefing.

In the first two patients, the cells were implanted in the seizure focus using MRI guidance through a tiny opening in the back of the skull. The patients recovered overnight and went home the next day.

The first patient had a 9-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy and was averaging 30 seizures per month at baseline. Testing confirmed that the seizures were coming from a single focus on the right temporal lobe. The implant was uncomplicated, and the cells were delivered to the seizure focus on target.

To date, there have been no serious or unexpected adverse events from the implant. At 9 months of follow-up the patient has had a 93% reduction in seizures overall and is free of all seizures causing impairment of awareness, “which was the most debilitating seizure type for this patient,” Dr. Spencer noted.

Studies of brain metabolism in the area of the implant have shown favorable markers of increased inhibition and decreased inflammation. Cognitive testing at 6 months showed no worsening of memory function or cognition. And, in fact, there were some mild improvements, he said.

The second patient had an 8-year history of drug-resistant epilepsy, averaging 14 focal seizures per month at baseline. Testing also confirmed seizure onset in a single focus in the right temporal lobe and the cells were again implanted without complication on target. Five months after treatment, the patient has had a 94% reduction in seizures and no serious adverse events.
 

‘Hot off the press’

Epilepsy affects about 3.5 million people in the United States. About two-thirds of people with epilepsy get good control of their seizures using antiseizure medication.

For seizures that are uncontrolled with medication, identifying the seizure focus and removing it surgically can often result in seizure freedom in a high proportion of patients. But not all patients are candidates for epilepsy surgery, and for those who can have it the surgery itself carries some risks, including diminished cognition and memory.

“While these are still early days, we’re encouraged by the positive safety findings so far, and the early seizure responses” with neural cell therapy, Dr. Spencer told reporters.

Given the positive results in the first two patients, additional patients will be treated “with careful safety review all along the way. This is going to be rolling out over the next several years,” Dr. Spencer said. Patient recruitment is underway at epilepsy centers across the United States.

Briefing moderator Natalia Rost, MD, MPH, chair of the AAN science committee, said, “This is a true example of emerging science. It’s literally hot off the press,” and the preliminary results are “very promising.”

Dr. Rost, chief of the stroke division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, noted that this type of cell therapy implant is “very novel and representative of where the field is moving, when no traditional solutions exist for common neurological problems.” 

The study was sponsored by Neurona Therapeutics and funded in part by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Beach and Dr. Spencer report no relevant financial relationships. Several investigators are employees of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Rost reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The neurologic symptoms of long COVID appear to be explained by a phenomenon known as antigenic imprinting, which involves a misdirected immune response to the SARS-CoV2 virus, according to a collaborative study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Already documented in several other viral infections, such as influenza and human immunodeficiency virus, antigenic imprinting results in production of antibodies to previously encountered viral infections rather than to the immediate threat, according to Marianna Spatola, MD, PhD, a research fellow at the Ragon Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
 

Original antigenic sin

In the case of persistent neurologic symptoms after COVID, a condition known as neuroPASC (neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV2 infection), antibodies produced for previously encountered coronaviruses rather than for SARS-CoV2 might explain most or all cases, according to the data Dr. Spatola presented.

The evidence for this explanation was drawn from a study of 112 patients evaluated months after an acute episode of COVID-19. Of these, 18 patients had persistent neurologic dysfunction. When compared with the 94 whose infection resolved without sequelae, the patients with prolonged neurologic impairments had relatively low systemic antibody response to SARS-CoV2. However, they showed relatively high antibody responses against other coronaviruses.

This is a pattern consistent with antigenic imprinting, a concept first described more than 60 years ago as original antigenic sin. When the immune system becomes imprinted with an antigen from the first encountered virus from a family of pathogens, it governs all subsequent antibody responses, according to several published studies that have described and evaluated this concept.
 

Additional evidence

In Dr. Spatola’s study, other differences, particularly in regard to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), further supported the role of antigenic imprinting as a cause of neuroPASC. For one, those with elevated immune responses to other common coronaviruses rather than SARS-CoV2 in the CSF relative to the periphery were more likely to have a bad outcome in regard to neurologic symptoms.

Moreover, the CSF in neuroPASC patients “was characterized by increased IgG1 and absence of IgM, suggesting compartmentalized humoral responses within the CSF through selective transfer of antibodies from the serum to the CSF across the blood-brain barrier rather than through intrathecal synthesis,” Dr. Spatola reported.

In the case of COVID-19, the propensity for antigenic imprinting is not difficult to understand.

“The common cold coronaviruses are pretty similar to SARS-CoV2, but they are not exactly the same,” Dr. Spatola said. Her work and studies by others suggest that when antigenic imprinting occurs, “it prevents full maturation of the antibody response.”

NeuroPASC is one of many manifestations of long COVID, but Dr. Spatola pointed out that the immune response in the CSF is unique and the causes of prolonged neurologic impairment after COVID-19 are likely to involve different mechanisms than other long-COVID symptoms.

“Antibodies in the brain are functionally different,” said Dr. Spatola, noting for example that antibody-directed defenses against viral threats show a greater relative reliance on phagocytosis. This might become important in the development of therapeutics for neurologic symptoms of long COVID.
 

A different phenomenon

The manifestations of neuroPASC are heterogeneous and can include confusion, cognitive dysfunction, headache, encephalitis, and other impairments. Neurologic symptoms occur during acute SARS-CoV2 infections, but neuroPASC appears to be a different phenomenon. These symptoms, which develop after the initial respiratory disease has resolved, were attributed by Dr. Spatola to persistent inflammation that is not necessarily directly related to ongoing infection.

“The reason why some patients develop neuroPASC is unknown, but I think the evidence has pointed to a role for the immune system rather than the virus itself,” Dr. Spatola said.

Currently, neuroPASC is a clinical diagnosis but Dr. Spatola and her coinvestigators are conducting research to identify biomarkers. A viable diagnostic test is not expected imminently. They have identified 150 different features with potential relevance to neuroPASC.

In their comparison of those who did relative to those who did not develop neuroPASC, the initial studies were undertaken 2-4 months after the acute COVID-19 symptoms had resolved. The patients with neuroPASC and those without neurologic sequelae have now been followed for 6-8 months, which Dr. Spatola said was too short to draw firm conclusions about outcomes.
 

An evolving concept

Despite the small sample size of this study, these are “very interesting data” for considering the pathogenesis of neuroPASC, which is “a concept that is still evolving,” according to Natalia S. Rost, MD, chief of the stroke division, department of neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Applied to SARS-CoV2, the concept of original antigenic sin “is new” but Dr. Rost said that it might help differentiate neuroPASC from acute neurologic symptoms of COVID-19, which include stroke. She indicated that the work performed by Dr. Spatola and others might eventually explain the pathology while leading to treatment strategies. She cautioned that the concepts explored in this study “need to be further developed” through larger sample sizes and the exploration of other variables that support the hypothesis.

Dr. Spatola and Dr. Rost report no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – The neurologic symptoms of long COVID appear to be explained by a phenomenon known as antigenic imprinting, which involves a misdirected immune response to the SARS-CoV2 virus, according to a collaborative study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Already documented in several other viral infections, such as influenza and human immunodeficiency virus, antigenic imprinting results in production of antibodies to previously encountered viral infections rather than to the immediate threat, according to Marianna Spatola, MD, PhD, a research fellow at the Ragon Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
 

Original antigenic sin

In the case of persistent neurologic symptoms after COVID, a condition known as neuroPASC (neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV2 infection), antibodies produced for previously encountered coronaviruses rather than for SARS-CoV2 might explain most or all cases, according to the data Dr. Spatola presented.

The evidence for this explanation was drawn from a study of 112 patients evaluated months after an acute episode of COVID-19. Of these, 18 patients had persistent neurologic dysfunction. When compared with the 94 whose infection resolved without sequelae, the patients with prolonged neurologic impairments had relatively low systemic antibody response to SARS-CoV2. However, they showed relatively high antibody responses against other coronaviruses.

This is a pattern consistent with antigenic imprinting, a concept first described more than 60 years ago as original antigenic sin. When the immune system becomes imprinted with an antigen from the first encountered virus from a family of pathogens, it governs all subsequent antibody responses, according to several published studies that have described and evaluated this concept.
 

Additional evidence

In Dr. Spatola’s study, other differences, particularly in regard to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), further supported the role of antigenic imprinting as a cause of neuroPASC. For one, those with elevated immune responses to other common coronaviruses rather than SARS-CoV2 in the CSF relative to the periphery were more likely to have a bad outcome in regard to neurologic symptoms.

Moreover, the CSF in neuroPASC patients “was characterized by increased IgG1 and absence of IgM, suggesting compartmentalized humoral responses within the CSF through selective transfer of antibodies from the serum to the CSF across the blood-brain barrier rather than through intrathecal synthesis,” Dr. Spatola reported.

In the case of COVID-19, the propensity for antigenic imprinting is not difficult to understand.

“The common cold coronaviruses are pretty similar to SARS-CoV2, but they are not exactly the same,” Dr. Spatola said. Her work and studies by others suggest that when antigenic imprinting occurs, “it prevents full maturation of the antibody response.”

NeuroPASC is one of many manifestations of long COVID, but Dr. Spatola pointed out that the immune response in the CSF is unique and the causes of prolonged neurologic impairment after COVID-19 are likely to involve different mechanisms than other long-COVID symptoms.

“Antibodies in the brain are functionally different,” said Dr. Spatola, noting for example that antibody-directed defenses against viral threats show a greater relative reliance on phagocytosis. This might become important in the development of therapeutics for neurologic symptoms of long COVID.
 

A different phenomenon

The manifestations of neuroPASC are heterogeneous and can include confusion, cognitive dysfunction, headache, encephalitis, and other impairments. Neurologic symptoms occur during acute SARS-CoV2 infections, but neuroPASC appears to be a different phenomenon. These symptoms, which develop after the initial respiratory disease has resolved, were attributed by Dr. Spatola to persistent inflammation that is not necessarily directly related to ongoing infection.

“The reason why some patients develop neuroPASC is unknown, but I think the evidence has pointed to a role for the immune system rather than the virus itself,” Dr. Spatola said.

Currently, neuroPASC is a clinical diagnosis but Dr. Spatola and her coinvestigators are conducting research to identify biomarkers. A viable diagnostic test is not expected imminently. They have identified 150 different features with potential relevance to neuroPASC.

In their comparison of those who did relative to those who did not develop neuroPASC, the initial studies were undertaken 2-4 months after the acute COVID-19 symptoms had resolved. The patients with neuroPASC and those without neurologic sequelae have now been followed for 6-8 months, which Dr. Spatola said was too short to draw firm conclusions about outcomes.
 

An evolving concept

Despite the small sample size of this study, these are “very interesting data” for considering the pathogenesis of neuroPASC, which is “a concept that is still evolving,” according to Natalia S. Rost, MD, chief of the stroke division, department of neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Applied to SARS-CoV2, the concept of original antigenic sin “is new” but Dr. Rost said that it might help differentiate neuroPASC from acute neurologic symptoms of COVID-19, which include stroke. She indicated that the work performed by Dr. Spatola and others might eventually explain the pathology while leading to treatment strategies. She cautioned that the concepts explored in this study “need to be further developed” through larger sample sizes and the exploration of other variables that support the hypothesis.

Dr. Spatola and Dr. Rost report no potential conflicts of interest.

BOSTON – The neurologic symptoms of long COVID appear to be explained by a phenomenon known as antigenic imprinting, which involves a misdirected immune response to the SARS-CoV2 virus, according to a collaborative study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Already documented in several other viral infections, such as influenza and human immunodeficiency virus, antigenic imprinting results in production of antibodies to previously encountered viral infections rather than to the immediate threat, according to Marianna Spatola, MD, PhD, a research fellow at the Ragon Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
 

Original antigenic sin

In the case of persistent neurologic symptoms after COVID, a condition known as neuroPASC (neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV2 infection), antibodies produced for previously encountered coronaviruses rather than for SARS-CoV2 might explain most or all cases, according to the data Dr. Spatola presented.

The evidence for this explanation was drawn from a study of 112 patients evaluated months after an acute episode of COVID-19. Of these, 18 patients had persistent neurologic dysfunction. When compared with the 94 whose infection resolved without sequelae, the patients with prolonged neurologic impairments had relatively low systemic antibody response to SARS-CoV2. However, they showed relatively high antibody responses against other coronaviruses.

This is a pattern consistent with antigenic imprinting, a concept first described more than 60 years ago as original antigenic sin. When the immune system becomes imprinted with an antigen from the first encountered virus from a family of pathogens, it governs all subsequent antibody responses, according to several published studies that have described and evaluated this concept.
 

Additional evidence

In Dr. Spatola’s study, other differences, particularly in regard to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), further supported the role of antigenic imprinting as a cause of neuroPASC. For one, those with elevated immune responses to other common coronaviruses rather than SARS-CoV2 in the CSF relative to the periphery were more likely to have a bad outcome in regard to neurologic symptoms.

Moreover, the CSF in neuroPASC patients “was characterized by increased IgG1 and absence of IgM, suggesting compartmentalized humoral responses within the CSF through selective transfer of antibodies from the serum to the CSF across the blood-brain barrier rather than through intrathecal synthesis,” Dr. Spatola reported.

In the case of COVID-19, the propensity for antigenic imprinting is not difficult to understand.

“The common cold coronaviruses are pretty similar to SARS-CoV2, but they are not exactly the same,” Dr. Spatola said. Her work and studies by others suggest that when antigenic imprinting occurs, “it prevents full maturation of the antibody response.”

NeuroPASC is one of many manifestations of long COVID, but Dr. Spatola pointed out that the immune response in the CSF is unique and the causes of prolonged neurologic impairment after COVID-19 are likely to involve different mechanisms than other long-COVID symptoms.

“Antibodies in the brain are functionally different,” said Dr. Spatola, noting for example that antibody-directed defenses against viral threats show a greater relative reliance on phagocytosis. This might become important in the development of therapeutics for neurologic symptoms of long COVID.
 

A different phenomenon

The manifestations of neuroPASC are heterogeneous and can include confusion, cognitive dysfunction, headache, encephalitis, and other impairments. Neurologic symptoms occur during acute SARS-CoV2 infections, but neuroPASC appears to be a different phenomenon. These symptoms, which develop after the initial respiratory disease has resolved, were attributed by Dr. Spatola to persistent inflammation that is not necessarily directly related to ongoing infection.

“The reason why some patients develop neuroPASC is unknown, but I think the evidence has pointed to a role for the immune system rather than the virus itself,” Dr. Spatola said.

Currently, neuroPASC is a clinical diagnosis but Dr. Spatola and her coinvestigators are conducting research to identify biomarkers. A viable diagnostic test is not expected imminently. They have identified 150 different features with potential relevance to neuroPASC.

In their comparison of those who did relative to those who did not develop neuroPASC, the initial studies were undertaken 2-4 months after the acute COVID-19 symptoms had resolved. The patients with neuroPASC and those without neurologic sequelae have now been followed for 6-8 months, which Dr. Spatola said was too short to draw firm conclusions about outcomes.
 

An evolving concept

Despite the small sample size of this study, these are “very interesting data” for considering the pathogenesis of neuroPASC, which is “a concept that is still evolving,” according to Natalia S. Rost, MD, chief of the stroke division, department of neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Applied to SARS-CoV2, the concept of original antigenic sin “is new” but Dr. Rost said that it might help differentiate neuroPASC from acute neurologic symptoms of COVID-19, which include stroke. She indicated that the work performed by Dr. Spatola and others might eventually explain the pathology while leading to treatment strategies. She cautioned that the concepts explored in this study “need to be further developed” through larger sample sizes and the exploration of other variables that support the hypothesis.

Dr. Spatola and Dr. Rost report no potential conflicts of interest.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.

Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.

HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.

The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.

The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.

Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.

They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.

Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.

HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.

The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.

The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.

Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.

They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.

Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.

HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.

The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.

The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.

Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.

They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”

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