Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.

A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).

This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).

Dr. Fabrice Bonnet

“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
 

Findings challenged

“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.

“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.

“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.

“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”

Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
 

Assessing the risk of incident diabetes

Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.

“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.

Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.

“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.

To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.

For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.

In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.

The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.

The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).

And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
 

Risk increased with oophorectomy

“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).

“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.

“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
 

No increased risk for endometriosis

While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).

The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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