User login
U.S. life expectancy drops to lowest in decades
according to new CDC data.
In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.
“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.
“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.
COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.
The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.
“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.
“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”
Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.
“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.
The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.
The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.
The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.
Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.
“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to new CDC data.
In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.
“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.
“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.
COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.
The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.
“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.
“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”
Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.
“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.
The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.
The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.
The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.
Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.
“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to new CDC data.
In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.
“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.
“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.
COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.
The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.
“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.
“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”
Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.
“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.
The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.
The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.
The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.
Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.
“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Blood type linked to higher risk for early onset stroke
Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.
In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.
“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Strong association
The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.
Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.
Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.
Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).
Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).
Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.
While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”
“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”
He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.
“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
More research needed on younger patients
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.
“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.
“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.
The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”
Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.
“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.
In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.
“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Strong association
The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.
Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.
Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.
Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).
Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).
Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.
While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”
“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”
He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.
“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
More research needed on younger patients
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.
“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.
“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.
The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”
Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.
“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Conversely, results from a meta-analysis of nearly 17,000 cases of ischemic stroke in adults younger than 60 years showed that having type O blood reduced the risk for EOS by 12%.
In addition, the associations with risk were significantly stronger in EOS than in those with late-onset stroke (LOS), pointing to a stronger role for prothrombotic factors in younger patients, the researchers noted.
“What this is telling us is that maybe what makes you susceptible to stroke as a young adult is the blood type, which is really giving you a much higher risk of clotting and stroke compared to later onset,” coinvestigator Braxton Mitchell, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Strong association
The genome-wide association study (GWAS) was done as part of the Genetics of Early Onset Ischemic Stroke Consortium, a collaboration of 48 different studies across North America, Europe, Japan, Pakistan, and Australia. It assessed early onset ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-59 years.
Researchers included data from 16,927 patients with stroke. Of these, 5,825 had a stroke before age 60, defined as early onset. GWAS results were also examined for nearly 600,000 individuals without stroke.
Results showed two genetic variants tied to blood types A and O emerged as highly associated with risk for early stroke.
Researchers found that the protective effects of type O were significantly stronger with EOS vs. LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.88 vs. 0.96, respectively; P = .001). Likewise, the association between type A and increased EOS risk was significantly stronger than that found in LOS (OR, 1.16 vs. 1.05; P = .005).
Using polygenic risk scores, the investigators also found that the greater genetic risk for venous thromboembolism, another prothrombotic condition, was more strongly associated with EOS compared with LOS (P = .008).
Previous studies have shown a link between stroke risk and variants of the ABO gene, which determines blood type. The new analysis suggests that type A and O gene variants represent nearly all of those genetically linked with early stroke, the researchers noted.
While the findings point to blood type as a risk factor for stroke in younger people, Dr. Mitchell cautions that “at the moment, blood group does not have implications for preventive care.”
“The risk of stroke due to blood type is smaller than other risk factors that we know about, like smoking and hypertension,” he said. “I would be much more worried about these other risk factors, especially because those may be modifiable.”
He noted the next step in the study is to assess how blood type interacts with other known risk factors to raise stroke risk.
“There may be a subset of people where, if you have blood type A and you have some of these other risk factors, it’s possible that you may be at particularly high risk,” Dr. Mitchell said.
More research needed on younger patients
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Paul Lacaze, PhD, associate professor and head of the public health genomics program at Monash University, Australia, noted that the study fills a gap in stroke research, which often focuses mostly on older individuals.
“In approximately 40% of people with EOS, the stroke is cryptogenic, and there is scant data from clinical trials to guide the selection of preventative strategies in this population, as people with EOS are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Majersik and Dr. Lacaze wrote.
“This work has deepened our understanding of EOS pathophysiology,” they added.
The editorialists noted that future research can build on the results from this analysis, “with the goal of a more precise understanding of stroke pathophysiology, leading to targeted preventative treatments for EOS and a reduction in disability in patients’ most productive years.”
Dr. Mitchell echoed the call for greater inclusion of young patients with stroke in clinical trials.
“As we’re learning, stroke in older folks isn’t the same as stroke in younger people,” he said. “There are many shared risk factors but there are also some that are different ... so there really is a need to include younger people.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Class I recall issued for intracranial pressure monitor
Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.
The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.
The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.
If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.
Global complaints
As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.
In addition,
According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.
“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.
The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”
The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.
For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.
Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].
Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.
The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.
The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.
If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.
Global complaints
As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.
In addition,
According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.
“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.
The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”
The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.
For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.
Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].
Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.
The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.
The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.
If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.
Global complaints
As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.
In addition,
According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.
“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.
The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”
The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.
For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.
Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].
Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AI-assisted reading of echocardiograms readily detects severe aortic stenosis
AI might facilitate early intervention
Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) of sufficient severity to portend a high likelihood of early mortality can be detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm employed in the reading of routine echocardiograms, according to a study that tested this tool in a large national database.
The artificial intelligence decision support algorithm (AI-DSA) “automatically identified patients with moderate to severe forms of AS associated with poor survival if left untreated,” reported Geoffrey A. Strange, PhD, professor, faculty of medicine, University of Sydney.
The AS-DSA was trained not only to recognize adverse changes in aortic valve morphology but to evaluate indices of impaired valve function, including those related to the left ventricle, the left atrium, and pulmonary circulation, according to Dr. Strange.
AI algorithm based on more than 800K echos
The training was performed on more than 1 million echocardiograms obtained from 630,000 patients in the National Echo Database (NEDA) of Australia. The testing phase of the study, called AI ENHANCED AS, was carried out on 179,054 individuals from the same database.
In the testing phase, mortality was compared for those determined by AI to have a low probability of clinically significant AS, a moderate to severe AS, or severe AS.
In the nearly 200,000 patients evaluated from the database, the AI-DSA classified 2.5% as having moderate to severe AS and 1.4% as having severe AS. Relative to a 22.9% mortality at 5 years in the low-risk reference group, the rates were 56.2% and 67.9% in the moderate to severe and severe groups, respectively.
When expressed as odds ratios, the mortality risk for the moderate to severe group (OR, 1.8; P < .001) and severe group (HR, 2.8; P < .001) “were about two to three times higher than the low probability group,” Dr. Strange reported.
All severe AS by guidelines AI identified
The algorithm picked up all patients identified with severe AS in current guidelines, but it also identified patients “missed by conventional definitions,” Dr. Strange reported.
The findings support the idea “that the AI algorithm could be used in clinical practice to alert physicians to patients who should undergo further investigations to determine if they qualify for aortic valve replacement,” he added.
Missing clinically significant AS is an important clinical problem, according to Catherine Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.
“We focus on the patients who already have a diagnosis of AS,” she said. “The bigger issue is identification of patients with unknown AS.”
She praised the effort to develop AI that improves detection of AS, but also said that there are immediate steps to improve detection of AS even in the absence of AI support. In addition to the variability in the quality of how echocardiograms are read, she said a substantial proportion of echo reports omit key variables.
“We do not need AI to measure the aortic valve. It is simple to do in clinical practice,” she said. However, studies have repeatedly shown that values, such as maximal aortic jet velocity (Vmax) and the pressure difference across the ventricular septal defect (delta P), are not included. When AS is present, some reports do not include a characterization of the severity.
The AI-DSA described by Dr. Strange takes into account all of these variables along with additional information, but he acknowledged that it does have limitations. For example, the presence of cardiac impairments other than AS will not be included, and these can be relevant to prognostication and treatment.
AI does not eliminate clinical decision-making
“This algorithm is definitely not meant to take away from clinical decision-making,” Dr. Strange said, but he argued that there is an unmet need to do better in the detection of AS. He presented data to show that “even moderate AS is not benign” in regard to 5-year outcomes, and he believes AI-DSA can allow clinicians to detect significant disease earlier and intervene in a timelier manner.
“It is time to revisit the practice of watchful waiting and consider more proactive attempts to identify those at risk,” he said.
The next step is to determine if AI-DSA makes a clinical difference,
“Research is now needed to determine if aortic valve replacement in patients identified as being at risk by AI-DSA improves survival and quality of life, particularly in those who do not meet current guideline definitions of clinically significant disease,” he said.
Dr. Strange reports financial relationships with Edwards, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Echo IQ, which is developing the artificial algorithm studied in this trial. Dr. Otto reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
AI might facilitate early intervention
AI might facilitate early intervention
Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) of sufficient severity to portend a high likelihood of early mortality can be detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm employed in the reading of routine echocardiograms, according to a study that tested this tool in a large national database.
The artificial intelligence decision support algorithm (AI-DSA) “automatically identified patients with moderate to severe forms of AS associated with poor survival if left untreated,” reported Geoffrey A. Strange, PhD, professor, faculty of medicine, University of Sydney.
The AS-DSA was trained not only to recognize adverse changes in aortic valve morphology but to evaluate indices of impaired valve function, including those related to the left ventricle, the left atrium, and pulmonary circulation, according to Dr. Strange.
AI algorithm based on more than 800K echos
The training was performed on more than 1 million echocardiograms obtained from 630,000 patients in the National Echo Database (NEDA) of Australia. The testing phase of the study, called AI ENHANCED AS, was carried out on 179,054 individuals from the same database.
In the testing phase, mortality was compared for those determined by AI to have a low probability of clinically significant AS, a moderate to severe AS, or severe AS.
In the nearly 200,000 patients evaluated from the database, the AI-DSA classified 2.5% as having moderate to severe AS and 1.4% as having severe AS. Relative to a 22.9% mortality at 5 years in the low-risk reference group, the rates were 56.2% and 67.9% in the moderate to severe and severe groups, respectively.
When expressed as odds ratios, the mortality risk for the moderate to severe group (OR, 1.8; P < .001) and severe group (HR, 2.8; P < .001) “were about two to three times higher than the low probability group,” Dr. Strange reported.
All severe AS by guidelines AI identified
The algorithm picked up all patients identified with severe AS in current guidelines, but it also identified patients “missed by conventional definitions,” Dr. Strange reported.
The findings support the idea “that the AI algorithm could be used in clinical practice to alert physicians to patients who should undergo further investigations to determine if they qualify for aortic valve replacement,” he added.
Missing clinically significant AS is an important clinical problem, according to Catherine Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.
“We focus on the patients who already have a diagnosis of AS,” she said. “The bigger issue is identification of patients with unknown AS.”
She praised the effort to develop AI that improves detection of AS, but also said that there are immediate steps to improve detection of AS even in the absence of AI support. In addition to the variability in the quality of how echocardiograms are read, she said a substantial proportion of echo reports omit key variables.
“We do not need AI to measure the aortic valve. It is simple to do in clinical practice,” she said. However, studies have repeatedly shown that values, such as maximal aortic jet velocity (Vmax) and the pressure difference across the ventricular septal defect (delta P), are not included. When AS is present, some reports do not include a characterization of the severity.
The AI-DSA described by Dr. Strange takes into account all of these variables along with additional information, but he acknowledged that it does have limitations. For example, the presence of cardiac impairments other than AS will not be included, and these can be relevant to prognostication and treatment.
AI does not eliminate clinical decision-making
“This algorithm is definitely not meant to take away from clinical decision-making,” Dr. Strange said, but he argued that there is an unmet need to do better in the detection of AS. He presented data to show that “even moderate AS is not benign” in regard to 5-year outcomes, and he believes AI-DSA can allow clinicians to detect significant disease earlier and intervene in a timelier manner.
“It is time to revisit the practice of watchful waiting and consider more proactive attempts to identify those at risk,” he said.
The next step is to determine if AI-DSA makes a clinical difference,
“Research is now needed to determine if aortic valve replacement in patients identified as being at risk by AI-DSA improves survival and quality of life, particularly in those who do not meet current guideline definitions of clinically significant disease,” he said.
Dr. Strange reports financial relationships with Edwards, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Echo IQ, which is developing the artificial algorithm studied in this trial. Dr. Otto reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) of sufficient severity to portend a high likelihood of early mortality can be detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm employed in the reading of routine echocardiograms, according to a study that tested this tool in a large national database.
The artificial intelligence decision support algorithm (AI-DSA) “automatically identified patients with moderate to severe forms of AS associated with poor survival if left untreated,” reported Geoffrey A. Strange, PhD, professor, faculty of medicine, University of Sydney.
The AS-DSA was trained not only to recognize adverse changes in aortic valve morphology but to evaluate indices of impaired valve function, including those related to the left ventricle, the left atrium, and pulmonary circulation, according to Dr. Strange.
AI algorithm based on more than 800K echos
The training was performed on more than 1 million echocardiograms obtained from 630,000 patients in the National Echo Database (NEDA) of Australia. The testing phase of the study, called AI ENHANCED AS, was carried out on 179,054 individuals from the same database.
In the testing phase, mortality was compared for those determined by AI to have a low probability of clinically significant AS, a moderate to severe AS, or severe AS.
In the nearly 200,000 patients evaluated from the database, the AI-DSA classified 2.5% as having moderate to severe AS and 1.4% as having severe AS. Relative to a 22.9% mortality at 5 years in the low-risk reference group, the rates were 56.2% and 67.9% in the moderate to severe and severe groups, respectively.
When expressed as odds ratios, the mortality risk for the moderate to severe group (OR, 1.8; P < .001) and severe group (HR, 2.8; P < .001) “were about two to three times higher than the low probability group,” Dr. Strange reported.
All severe AS by guidelines AI identified
The algorithm picked up all patients identified with severe AS in current guidelines, but it also identified patients “missed by conventional definitions,” Dr. Strange reported.
The findings support the idea “that the AI algorithm could be used in clinical practice to alert physicians to patients who should undergo further investigations to determine if they qualify for aortic valve replacement,” he added.
Missing clinically significant AS is an important clinical problem, according to Catherine Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.
“We focus on the patients who already have a diagnosis of AS,” she said. “The bigger issue is identification of patients with unknown AS.”
She praised the effort to develop AI that improves detection of AS, but also said that there are immediate steps to improve detection of AS even in the absence of AI support. In addition to the variability in the quality of how echocardiograms are read, she said a substantial proportion of echo reports omit key variables.
“We do not need AI to measure the aortic valve. It is simple to do in clinical practice,” she said. However, studies have repeatedly shown that values, such as maximal aortic jet velocity (Vmax) and the pressure difference across the ventricular septal defect (delta P), are not included. When AS is present, some reports do not include a characterization of the severity.
The AI-DSA described by Dr. Strange takes into account all of these variables along with additional information, but he acknowledged that it does have limitations. For example, the presence of cardiac impairments other than AS will not be included, and these can be relevant to prognostication and treatment.
AI does not eliminate clinical decision-making
“This algorithm is definitely not meant to take away from clinical decision-making,” Dr. Strange said, but he argued that there is an unmet need to do better in the detection of AS. He presented data to show that “even moderate AS is not benign” in regard to 5-year outcomes, and he believes AI-DSA can allow clinicians to detect significant disease earlier and intervene in a timelier manner.
“It is time to revisit the practice of watchful waiting and consider more proactive attempts to identify those at risk,” he said.
The next step is to determine if AI-DSA makes a clinical difference,
“Research is now needed to determine if aortic valve replacement in patients identified as being at risk by AI-DSA improves survival and quality of life, particularly in those who do not meet current guideline definitions of clinically significant disease,” he said.
Dr. Strange reports financial relationships with Edwards, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Echo IQ, which is developing the artificial algorithm studied in this trial. Dr. Otto reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
Tips for navigating the altered retroperitoneum
New ESC cardio-oncology guideline aims to reduce cardiotoxicity
BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.
The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”
because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.
“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.
“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.
The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”
“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
Steady decline in cancer-related mortality
The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”
Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.
He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”
Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.
Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.
Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”
That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.
The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.
“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”
Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.
She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.
Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.
There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.
To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.
They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.
The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.
They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.
A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.
Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.
He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.
Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.
In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.
These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.
Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.
Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.
The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.
The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”
because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.
“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.
“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.
The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”
“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
Steady decline in cancer-related mortality
The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”
Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.
He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”
Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.
Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.
Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”
That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.
The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.
“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”
Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.
She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.
Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.
There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.
To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.
They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.
The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.
They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.
A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.
Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.
He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.
Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.
In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.
These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.
Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.
Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.
The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – Cardiovascular disease risk factors, as well as established disease, in patients undergoing cancer therapy can be safely managed to minimize cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity (CVR-CVT), conclude the first cardio-oncology guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology.
The guidelines were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
Guideline cochair Alexander R. Lyon, MD, PhD, told this news organization that the aim of the guideline was to “personalize the decision-making of a patient with cancer who has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of developing it from their treatment ... because it’s not one size fits all.”
because how you manage someone who’s at high risk is going to be different” than managing someone who is at moderate or low risk, he said.
“We’re doing a lot of surveillance because one of the big advantages of cardio-oncology is we know when someone is about to get treated,” Dr. Lyon, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Cardio-Oncology Service, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, said.
“You don’t know in nature when someone’s going to have an acute myocardial infarction or acute viral myocarditis, but we do know when they’re coming into an oncology clinic to get an infusion of chemotherapy or tablets,” he noted.
The guidelines offer recommendations so that patients can “have their treatment safely and minimize interruptions.”
“We know these cancer therapies work; we’re here to get the best of both worlds” by minimizing cardiotoxicity, Dr. Lyon said.
Steady decline in cancer-related mortality
The guidelines note that since the 1990s there has been a “steady decline in cancer-related mortality, mirrored by a steady increase in cancer survival,” and the result is that “treatment-related side effects have gained more significance.”
Dr. Lyon said that between 2011 and 2021, there was a fivefold increase in the number of new referrals of cancer patients with cardiological consequences to his institution.
He said that one of main drivers is modifiable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and inactivity, which increase the risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
“Allied to that, there’s been an improvement in treating cardiovascular diseases in people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, so they’re surviving their heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation to develop cancers in later life.”
Combined with the aging population, the result is that “not only are many more people being diagnosed with cancer, because they’re living longer, but they have all these pre-existing heart risk factors, whether as confirmed disease or just the risk factors associated with that,” he said.
Another aspect is that many of the newer, targeted cancer therapies confer a cardiovascular risk.
Dr. Lyon said that the “most famous one” is trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer but that also causes left ventricular impairment “in about 15%-20% of the women taking it and can cause severe heart failure if it is missed.”
That, he continued, was the “forerunner of designer, targeted therapies,” and the subsequent “explosion” in the availability of modern cancer therapies has included many that confer cardiac issues.
The final reason for the greater interest in cardio-oncology, Dr. Lyon added, is the increasing awareness in oncology and hematology teams of the potential for cardiac problems among their patients.
“We have been reaching out to our oncology and hematology colleagues over the last 5-10 years to explain we’re here to help. We’re not here to stop their treatments, we’re here to support them.”
Presenting the guidelines, cochair Teresa López-Fernández, MD, cardiology department, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ Research Institute, Madrid, said that the “spectrum of CVR-CVT presentations” includes arterial hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and myocarditis.
She explained that cytotoxic cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk for cardiac toxicity that is most acute during the treatment phase but is not entirely diminished once it is over, then typically accumulates during long-term follow-up.
Crucially, the impact of cancer therapy on cardiovascular risk is dependent on several factors, such as patient age, cancer history, pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease, and previous cardiotoxic cancer therapy.
There are nevertheless a number of potential strategies to reduce the risk for cardiac toxicity, including primary and secondary prevention prior to the start of cancer therapy and early CVR-CVT management during treatment, as well as cardiovascular risk assessment in the first year after treatment completion and cancer-survivorship programs.
To those ends, Dr. López-Fernández said the guidelines incorporate 272 new recommendations that cover the entire cardio-oncology care pathway, beginning with cardiovascular risk stratification before anticancer therapy.
They offer a risk-assessment checklist and make a series of recommendations for patients to be treated with potentially cardiotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines, as well as recommendations on cardiac imaging.
The guidelines provide a range of recommendations for primary and secondary cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity prevention, including minimization of the use of cardiotoxic drugs and the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta blockers, and statins for primary prevention.
They establish CVR-CVT monitoring protocols across the gamut of cancer therapies, from HER-targeted therapies, through immune checkpoint inhibitors, Bruton tyrosine kinase, CDK4/6, EGFR, VEGF, and ALK inhibitors, and androgen-deprivation and endocrine therapies, to the more novel CAR-T-cell therapies.
A section on radiotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity has its own protocol for the establishment of an individual’s mean heart dose of radiation or the amount of radiation exposure to the heart during treatment.
Next, Dr. Lyon looked at recommendations for the management of cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity in patients receiving anticancer treatment.
He underlined that treatment decisions should consider the cancer and cardiovascular symptom burden, the cancer prognosis, the requirements for cancer treatment, including alternative options, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.
Dr. Lyon highlighted the algorithms designed to aid the management of cardiac dysfunction related to anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as QTc-prolonging anticancer drugs.
In the first 12 months after the completions of therapy, there are a number of risk factors for future cardiovascular disease, he continued.
These include high and very high baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk, anticancer treatments known to have a high risk for long-term cardiovascular complications, such as doxorubicin and radiotherapy, and moderate or severe CTR-CVT during anticancer treatment.
Over the long term, the guidelines recommend that surveillance in asymptomatic cancer survivors range from an annual cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk patients to patient education and cardiovascular risk factor optimization, alongside regular transthoracic echocardiography in high-risk groups.
Finally, Dr. Lyon said the guidelines turn their attention to special populations, such as patients with cardiac masses and tumors, those with carcinoid heart disease, pregnant women receiving cancer therapy, as well as those with cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing radiotherapy.
The guidelines were developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the ESC, in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Dr. Lyon declares relationships with Akcea, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Heartfelt Technologies, Brainstorm, and Myocardial Solutions. Dr. López-Fernández declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall Spain, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Shortened radiotherapy for endometrial cancer looks safe, questions remain
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Expert shares tips on hair disorders and photoprotection for patients of color
PORTLAND, ORE. – , but sometimes their doctors fall short.
“Many times, you may not have race concordant visits with patients of color,” Janiene Luke, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. She referred to a survey of 200 Black women aged 21-83 years, which found that 28% had visited a physician to discuss hair or scalp issues. Of those, 68% felt like their dermatologists did not understand African American hair.
“I recommend trying the best you can to familiarize yourself with various common cultural hair styling methods and practices in patients of color. It’s important to understand what your patients are engaging in and the types of styles they’re using,” said Dr. Luke, associate professor of dermatology at Loma Linda (Calif.) University. “Approach all patients with cultural humility. We know from studies that patients value dermatologists who take time to listen to their concerns, involve them in the decision-making process, and educate them about their conditions,” she added.
National efforts to educate clinicians on treating skin of color have emerged in recent years, including textbooks, CME courses at dermatology conferences, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Skin of Color Curriculum, which consists of 15-minute modules that can be viewed online.
At the meeting, Dr. Luke, shared her approach to assessing hair and scalp disorders in skin of color. She begins by taking a thorough history, “because not all things that are associated with hair styling will be the reason why your patient comes in,” she said. “Patients of color can have telogen effluvium and seborrheic dermatitis just like anyone else. I ask about the hair styling practices they use. I also ask how often they wash their hair, because sometimes our recommendations for treatment are not realistic based on their current routine.”
Next, she examines the scalp with her hands – which sometimes surprises patients. “I’ve had so many patients come in and say, ‘the dermatologist never touched my scalp,’ or ‘they never even looked at my hair,’ ” said Dr. Luke, who directs the university’s dermatology residency program. She asks patients to remove any hair extensions or weaves prior to the office visit and to remove wigs prior to the exam itself. The lab tests she customarily orders include CBC, TSH, iron, total iron binding capacity, ferritin, vitamin D, and zinc. If there are signs of androgen excess, she may check testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S). She routinely incorporates a dermoscopy-directed biopsy into the evaluation.
Dr. Luke examines the patient from above, the sides, and the back to assess the pattern/distribution of hair loss. A visible scalp at the vertex indicates a 50% reduction in normal hair density. “I’m looking at the hairline, their part width, and the length of their hair,” she said. “I also look at the eyebrows and eyelashes, because these can be involved in alopecia areata, frontal fibrosing alopecia, or congenital hair shaft disorders.”
On closeup examination, she looks for scarring versus non-scarring types of hair loss, and for the presence or absence of follicular ostia. “I also look at hair changes,” she said. “Is the texture of their hair different? Are there signs of breakage or fragility? It’s been noted in studies that breakage can be an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.” (For more tips on examining tightly coiled hair among patients with hair loss in race discordant patient-physician interactions, she recommended a 2021 article in JAMA Dermatology)..
Trichoscopy allows for magnified observation of the hair shafts, hair follicle openings, perifollicular dermis, and blood vessels. Normal trichoscopy findings in skin of color reveal a perifollicular pigment network (honeycomb pattern) and pinpoint white dots that are regularly distributed between follicular units.
Common abnormalities seen on trichoscopy include central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), with one or two hairs emerging together, surrounded by a gray halo; lichen planopilaris/frontal fibrosing alopecia, characterized by hair with peripilar casts and absence of vellus hairs; discoid lupus erythematosus, characterized by keratotic plugs; and traction, characterized by hair casts.
Once a diagnosis is confirmed, Dr. Luke provides other general advice for optimal skin health, including a balanced (whole food) diet to ensure adequate nutrition. “I tend to find a lot of nutrient deficiencies that contribute to and compound their condition,” she said. Other recommendations include avoiding excess tension on the hair, such as hair styles with tight ponytails, buns, braids, and weaves; avoiding or limiting chemical treatments with hair color, relaxers, and permanents; and avoiding or limiting excessive heat styling with blow dryers, flat irons, and curling irons.
Photoprotection misconceptions
At the meeting, Dr. Luke also discussed three misconceptions of photoprotection in skin of color, drawn from an article on the topic published in 2021.
- Myth No. 1: Endogenous melanin provides complete photoprotection for Fitzpatrick skin types IV-V. Many people with skin of color may believe sunscreen is not needed given the melanin already present in their skin, but research has shown that the epidermis of dark skin has an intrinsic sun protection factor (SPF) of 13.4, compared with an SPF of 3.3 in light skin. “That may not provide them with full protection,” Dr. Luke said. “Many dermatologists are not counseling their skin of color patients about photoprotection.”
- Myth No. 2: Individuals with skin of color have negligible risks associated with skin cancer. Skin cancer prevalence in patients with skin of color is significantly lower compared with those with light skin. However, people with skin of color tend to be diagnosed with cancers at a more advanced stage, and cancers associated with a worse prognosis and poorer survival rate. An analysis of ethnic differences among patients with cutaneous melanoma that drew from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program found that Hispanic individuals (odds ratio [OR], 3.6), Black individuals (OR, 4.2), and Asian individuals (OR, 2.4), were more likely than were White individuals to have stage IV melanoma at the time of presentation. “For melanoma in skin of color, UV radiation does not seem to be a major risk factor, as melanoma tends to occur on palmar/plantar and subungual skin as well as mucous membranes,” Dr. Luke said. “For squamous cell carcinoma in skin of color, lesions are more likely to be present in areas that are not sun exposed. The risk factors for this tend to be chronic wounds, nonhealing ulcers, and people with chronic inflammatory conditions.” For basal cell carcinoma, she added, UV radiation seems to play more of a role and tends to occur in sun-exposed areas in patients with lighter Fitzpatrick skin types. Patients are more likely to present with pigmented BCCs.
- Myth No. 3: Broad-spectrum sunscreens provide photoprotection against all wavelengths of light that cause skin damage. To be labeled “broad-spectrum” the Food and Drug Administration requires that sunscreens have a critical wavelength of 370 nm or below, but Dr. Luke noted that broad-spectrum sunscreens do not necessarily protect against visible light (VL) and UV-A1. Research has demonstrated that VL exposure induces both transient and long-term cutaneous pigmentation in a dose-dependent manner.
“This induces free radicals and reactive oxygen species, leading to a cascade of events including the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines, matrix metalloproteinases, and melanogenesis,” she said. “More intense and persistent VL-induced pigmentation occurs in subjects with darker skin. However, there is increasing evidence that antioxidants may help to mitigate these negative effects, so we are starting to see the addition of antioxidants into sunscreens.”
Dr. Luke recommends a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for skin of color patients. Tinted sunscreens, which contain iron oxide pigments, are recommended for the prevention and treatment of pigmentary disorders in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI skin. “What about adding antioxidants to prevent formation of reactive oxygen species?” she asked. “It’s possible but we don’t have a lot of research yet. You also want a sunscreen that’s aesthetically elegant, meaning it doesn’t leave a white cast.”
Dr. Luke reported having no relevant disclosures.
PORTLAND, ORE. – , but sometimes their doctors fall short.
“Many times, you may not have race concordant visits with patients of color,” Janiene Luke, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. She referred to a survey of 200 Black women aged 21-83 years, which found that 28% had visited a physician to discuss hair or scalp issues. Of those, 68% felt like their dermatologists did not understand African American hair.
“I recommend trying the best you can to familiarize yourself with various common cultural hair styling methods and practices in patients of color. It’s important to understand what your patients are engaging in and the types of styles they’re using,” said Dr. Luke, associate professor of dermatology at Loma Linda (Calif.) University. “Approach all patients with cultural humility. We know from studies that patients value dermatologists who take time to listen to their concerns, involve them in the decision-making process, and educate them about their conditions,” she added.
National efforts to educate clinicians on treating skin of color have emerged in recent years, including textbooks, CME courses at dermatology conferences, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Skin of Color Curriculum, which consists of 15-minute modules that can be viewed online.
At the meeting, Dr. Luke, shared her approach to assessing hair and scalp disorders in skin of color. She begins by taking a thorough history, “because not all things that are associated with hair styling will be the reason why your patient comes in,” she said. “Patients of color can have telogen effluvium and seborrheic dermatitis just like anyone else. I ask about the hair styling practices they use. I also ask how often they wash their hair, because sometimes our recommendations for treatment are not realistic based on their current routine.”
Next, she examines the scalp with her hands – which sometimes surprises patients. “I’ve had so many patients come in and say, ‘the dermatologist never touched my scalp,’ or ‘they never even looked at my hair,’ ” said Dr. Luke, who directs the university’s dermatology residency program. She asks patients to remove any hair extensions or weaves prior to the office visit and to remove wigs prior to the exam itself. The lab tests she customarily orders include CBC, TSH, iron, total iron binding capacity, ferritin, vitamin D, and zinc. If there are signs of androgen excess, she may check testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S). She routinely incorporates a dermoscopy-directed biopsy into the evaluation.
Dr. Luke examines the patient from above, the sides, and the back to assess the pattern/distribution of hair loss. A visible scalp at the vertex indicates a 50% reduction in normal hair density. “I’m looking at the hairline, their part width, and the length of their hair,” she said. “I also look at the eyebrows and eyelashes, because these can be involved in alopecia areata, frontal fibrosing alopecia, or congenital hair shaft disorders.”
On closeup examination, she looks for scarring versus non-scarring types of hair loss, and for the presence or absence of follicular ostia. “I also look at hair changes,” she said. “Is the texture of their hair different? Are there signs of breakage or fragility? It’s been noted in studies that breakage can be an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.” (For more tips on examining tightly coiled hair among patients with hair loss in race discordant patient-physician interactions, she recommended a 2021 article in JAMA Dermatology)..
Trichoscopy allows for magnified observation of the hair shafts, hair follicle openings, perifollicular dermis, and blood vessels. Normal trichoscopy findings in skin of color reveal a perifollicular pigment network (honeycomb pattern) and pinpoint white dots that are regularly distributed between follicular units.
Common abnormalities seen on trichoscopy include central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), with one or two hairs emerging together, surrounded by a gray halo; lichen planopilaris/frontal fibrosing alopecia, characterized by hair with peripilar casts and absence of vellus hairs; discoid lupus erythematosus, characterized by keratotic plugs; and traction, characterized by hair casts.
Once a diagnosis is confirmed, Dr. Luke provides other general advice for optimal skin health, including a balanced (whole food) diet to ensure adequate nutrition. “I tend to find a lot of nutrient deficiencies that contribute to and compound their condition,” she said. Other recommendations include avoiding excess tension on the hair, such as hair styles with tight ponytails, buns, braids, and weaves; avoiding or limiting chemical treatments with hair color, relaxers, and permanents; and avoiding or limiting excessive heat styling with blow dryers, flat irons, and curling irons.
Photoprotection misconceptions
At the meeting, Dr. Luke also discussed three misconceptions of photoprotection in skin of color, drawn from an article on the topic published in 2021.
- Myth No. 1: Endogenous melanin provides complete photoprotection for Fitzpatrick skin types IV-V. Many people with skin of color may believe sunscreen is not needed given the melanin already present in their skin, but research has shown that the epidermis of dark skin has an intrinsic sun protection factor (SPF) of 13.4, compared with an SPF of 3.3 in light skin. “That may not provide them with full protection,” Dr. Luke said. “Many dermatologists are not counseling their skin of color patients about photoprotection.”
- Myth No. 2: Individuals with skin of color have negligible risks associated with skin cancer. Skin cancer prevalence in patients with skin of color is significantly lower compared with those with light skin. However, people with skin of color tend to be diagnosed with cancers at a more advanced stage, and cancers associated with a worse prognosis and poorer survival rate. An analysis of ethnic differences among patients with cutaneous melanoma that drew from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program found that Hispanic individuals (odds ratio [OR], 3.6), Black individuals (OR, 4.2), and Asian individuals (OR, 2.4), were more likely than were White individuals to have stage IV melanoma at the time of presentation. “For melanoma in skin of color, UV radiation does not seem to be a major risk factor, as melanoma tends to occur on palmar/plantar and subungual skin as well as mucous membranes,” Dr. Luke said. “For squamous cell carcinoma in skin of color, lesions are more likely to be present in areas that are not sun exposed. The risk factors for this tend to be chronic wounds, nonhealing ulcers, and people with chronic inflammatory conditions.” For basal cell carcinoma, she added, UV radiation seems to play more of a role and tends to occur in sun-exposed areas in patients with lighter Fitzpatrick skin types. Patients are more likely to present with pigmented BCCs.
- Myth No. 3: Broad-spectrum sunscreens provide photoprotection against all wavelengths of light that cause skin damage. To be labeled “broad-spectrum” the Food and Drug Administration requires that sunscreens have a critical wavelength of 370 nm or below, but Dr. Luke noted that broad-spectrum sunscreens do not necessarily protect against visible light (VL) and UV-A1. Research has demonstrated that VL exposure induces both transient and long-term cutaneous pigmentation in a dose-dependent manner.
“This induces free radicals and reactive oxygen species, leading to a cascade of events including the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines, matrix metalloproteinases, and melanogenesis,” she said. “More intense and persistent VL-induced pigmentation occurs in subjects with darker skin. However, there is increasing evidence that antioxidants may help to mitigate these negative effects, so we are starting to see the addition of antioxidants into sunscreens.”
Dr. Luke recommends a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for skin of color patients. Tinted sunscreens, which contain iron oxide pigments, are recommended for the prevention and treatment of pigmentary disorders in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI skin. “What about adding antioxidants to prevent formation of reactive oxygen species?” she asked. “It’s possible but we don’t have a lot of research yet. You also want a sunscreen that’s aesthetically elegant, meaning it doesn’t leave a white cast.”
Dr. Luke reported having no relevant disclosures.
PORTLAND, ORE. – , but sometimes their doctors fall short.
“Many times, you may not have race concordant visits with patients of color,” Janiene Luke, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. She referred to a survey of 200 Black women aged 21-83 years, which found that 28% had visited a physician to discuss hair or scalp issues. Of those, 68% felt like their dermatologists did not understand African American hair.
“I recommend trying the best you can to familiarize yourself with various common cultural hair styling methods and practices in patients of color. It’s important to understand what your patients are engaging in and the types of styles they’re using,” said Dr. Luke, associate professor of dermatology at Loma Linda (Calif.) University. “Approach all patients with cultural humility. We know from studies that patients value dermatologists who take time to listen to their concerns, involve them in the decision-making process, and educate them about their conditions,” she added.
National efforts to educate clinicians on treating skin of color have emerged in recent years, including textbooks, CME courses at dermatology conferences, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Skin of Color Curriculum, which consists of 15-minute modules that can be viewed online.
At the meeting, Dr. Luke, shared her approach to assessing hair and scalp disorders in skin of color. She begins by taking a thorough history, “because not all things that are associated with hair styling will be the reason why your patient comes in,” she said. “Patients of color can have telogen effluvium and seborrheic dermatitis just like anyone else. I ask about the hair styling practices they use. I also ask how often they wash their hair, because sometimes our recommendations for treatment are not realistic based on their current routine.”
Next, she examines the scalp with her hands – which sometimes surprises patients. “I’ve had so many patients come in and say, ‘the dermatologist never touched my scalp,’ or ‘they never even looked at my hair,’ ” said Dr. Luke, who directs the university’s dermatology residency program. She asks patients to remove any hair extensions or weaves prior to the office visit and to remove wigs prior to the exam itself. The lab tests she customarily orders include CBC, TSH, iron, total iron binding capacity, ferritin, vitamin D, and zinc. If there are signs of androgen excess, she may check testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S). She routinely incorporates a dermoscopy-directed biopsy into the evaluation.
Dr. Luke examines the patient from above, the sides, and the back to assess the pattern/distribution of hair loss. A visible scalp at the vertex indicates a 50% reduction in normal hair density. “I’m looking at the hairline, their part width, and the length of their hair,” she said. “I also look at the eyebrows and eyelashes, because these can be involved in alopecia areata, frontal fibrosing alopecia, or congenital hair shaft disorders.”
On closeup examination, she looks for scarring versus non-scarring types of hair loss, and for the presence or absence of follicular ostia. “I also look at hair changes,” she said. “Is the texture of their hair different? Are there signs of breakage or fragility? It’s been noted in studies that breakage can be an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.” (For more tips on examining tightly coiled hair among patients with hair loss in race discordant patient-physician interactions, she recommended a 2021 article in JAMA Dermatology)..
Trichoscopy allows for magnified observation of the hair shafts, hair follicle openings, perifollicular dermis, and blood vessels. Normal trichoscopy findings in skin of color reveal a perifollicular pigment network (honeycomb pattern) and pinpoint white dots that are regularly distributed between follicular units.
Common abnormalities seen on trichoscopy include central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), with one or two hairs emerging together, surrounded by a gray halo; lichen planopilaris/frontal fibrosing alopecia, characterized by hair with peripilar casts and absence of vellus hairs; discoid lupus erythematosus, characterized by keratotic plugs; and traction, characterized by hair casts.
Once a diagnosis is confirmed, Dr. Luke provides other general advice for optimal skin health, including a balanced (whole food) diet to ensure adequate nutrition. “I tend to find a lot of nutrient deficiencies that contribute to and compound their condition,” she said. Other recommendations include avoiding excess tension on the hair, such as hair styles with tight ponytails, buns, braids, and weaves; avoiding or limiting chemical treatments with hair color, relaxers, and permanents; and avoiding or limiting excessive heat styling with blow dryers, flat irons, and curling irons.
Photoprotection misconceptions
At the meeting, Dr. Luke also discussed three misconceptions of photoprotection in skin of color, drawn from an article on the topic published in 2021.
- Myth No. 1: Endogenous melanin provides complete photoprotection for Fitzpatrick skin types IV-V. Many people with skin of color may believe sunscreen is not needed given the melanin already present in their skin, but research has shown that the epidermis of dark skin has an intrinsic sun protection factor (SPF) of 13.4, compared with an SPF of 3.3 in light skin. “That may not provide them with full protection,” Dr. Luke said. “Many dermatologists are not counseling their skin of color patients about photoprotection.”
- Myth No. 2: Individuals with skin of color have negligible risks associated with skin cancer. Skin cancer prevalence in patients with skin of color is significantly lower compared with those with light skin. However, people with skin of color tend to be diagnosed with cancers at a more advanced stage, and cancers associated with a worse prognosis and poorer survival rate. An analysis of ethnic differences among patients with cutaneous melanoma that drew from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program found that Hispanic individuals (odds ratio [OR], 3.6), Black individuals (OR, 4.2), and Asian individuals (OR, 2.4), were more likely than were White individuals to have stage IV melanoma at the time of presentation. “For melanoma in skin of color, UV radiation does not seem to be a major risk factor, as melanoma tends to occur on palmar/plantar and subungual skin as well as mucous membranes,” Dr. Luke said. “For squamous cell carcinoma in skin of color, lesions are more likely to be present in areas that are not sun exposed. The risk factors for this tend to be chronic wounds, nonhealing ulcers, and people with chronic inflammatory conditions.” For basal cell carcinoma, she added, UV radiation seems to play more of a role and tends to occur in sun-exposed areas in patients with lighter Fitzpatrick skin types. Patients are more likely to present with pigmented BCCs.
- Myth No. 3: Broad-spectrum sunscreens provide photoprotection against all wavelengths of light that cause skin damage. To be labeled “broad-spectrum” the Food and Drug Administration requires that sunscreens have a critical wavelength of 370 nm or below, but Dr. Luke noted that broad-spectrum sunscreens do not necessarily protect against visible light (VL) and UV-A1. Research has demonstrated that VL exposure induces both transient and long-term cutaneous pigmentation in a dose-dependent manner.
“This induces free radicals and reactive oxygen species, leading to a cascade of events including the induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines, matrix metalloproteinases, and melanogenesis,” she said. “More intense and persistent VL-induced pigmentation occurs in subjects with darker skin. However, there is increasing evidence that antioxidants may help to mitigate these negative effects, so we are starting to see the addition of antioxidants into sunscreens.”
Dr. Luke recommends a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for skin of color patients. Tinted sunscreens, which contain iron oxide pigments, are recommended for the prevention and treatment of pigmentary disorders in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI skin. “What about adding antioxidants to prevent formation of reactive oxygen species?” she asked. “It’s possible but we don’t have a lot of research yet. You also want a sunscreen that’s aesthetically elegant, meaning it doesn’t leave a white cast.”
Dr. Luke reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT PDA 2022
Bias and other barriers to HSCT access
For example, at the June 5 plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Paul Richardson, MD, presented results of the DETERMINATION trial. More than 40,000 attendees heard his message that, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), up-front high-dose melphalan with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) support is associated with a significantly longer median progression-free survival of 67 months, compared with 46 months for patients randomized to delayed transplantation. The 5-year overall survival is similar for both arms.
While I and many of my colleagues in the field of transplantation used this data to strongly encourage MM patients to undergo HSCT as consolidation of their initial remission, others – including many investigators on the DETERMINATION trial – reached a starkly different conclusion. They suggested that delaying transplant was a valid option, since no survival benefit was observed.
Bias, when defined as a prejudice in favor of or against a specific treatment on the part of physicians and patients, has not been carefully studied in the realm of cellular therapies. However, physician and patient perceptions or misperceptions about the value or toxicity of a specific therapy are probably major drivers of whether a patient is referred for and accepts a particular form of treatment. In my specialization, that would mean either a stem cell transplant or other forms of cell therapy.
As with other medical procedures, in my field there are significant disparities in the use of transplantation among patients of different racial, ethnic, and age groups. Rates of both auto- and allo-HSCT are significantly higher for Whites than for African Americans. Hispanic patients have the lowest rates of utilization of auto-HSCT. Patients over the age of 60 have an eightfold risk of nonreferral to an HSCT center. Obviously, these nonreferrals reduce access to HSCT for older patients, particularly if they are seen at nonacademic centers.
One must question whether these disparities are caused by the physicians not believing in the value of transplantation, or simply not understanding its value? Or do they just lack the time to refer patients to a transplant center?
Socioeconomic factors, insurance status, age, and psychosocial characteristics all impact access to HSCT, yet some older patients with fewer economic resources and less insurance coverage still undergo the procedure. Is that because their physicians spent time educating these patients about the potential value of this treatment? Is it because the physicians went the extra mile to get these patients access to HSCT?
Physician preference also plays a significant role in whether a patient receives an allo-HSCT for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. In a large survey of hematologists and oncologists performed by Pidala and colleagues, half of those surveyed agreed with the statement: “I feel the risk (morbidity and mortality) after HSCT is very high.” Most indicated that they “feel outcomes of unrelated donor HCT are much worse than matched sibling HCT.”
More importantly, more than one-third of those surveyed agreed that, “because of the high risks of allogeneic HSCT, I refer only after failure of conventional chemotherapy.” They voiced this opinion despite the fact that mortality rates after HSCT have been reduced significantly. With modern techniques, outcomes of unrelated donors are as good as with sibling donor transplants, and national guidelines strongly recommend that patients get referred before they become refractory to chemotherapy.
What can we do about this problem? Obviously, physician and provider education is important, but primary care physicians and general oncologists are already bombarded daily with new information. Relatively rare conditions like those we treat simply may not get their attention.
Personally, I think one of the most effective ways to overcome bias among physicians would be to target patients through a direct advertising campaign and public service announcements. Only by getting the attention of patients can they be directed to current, accurate information.
This solution could reduce the impact of physician biases or misperceptions and provide patients with greater access to lifesaving cell therapies.
Dr. Giralt is deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
For example, at the June 5 plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Paul Richardson, MD, presented results of the DETERMINATION trial. More than 40,000 attendees heard his message that, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), up-front high-dose melphalan with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) support is associated with a significantly longer median progression-free survival of 67 months, compared with 46 months for patients randomized to delayed transplantation. The 5-year overall survival is similar for both arms.
While I and many of my colleagues in the field of transplantation used this data to strongly encourage MM patients to undergo HSCT as consolidation of their initial remission, others – including many investigators on the DETERMINATION trial – reached a starkly different conclusion. They suggested that delaying transplant was a valid option, since no survival benefit was observed.
Bias, when defined as a prejudice in favor of or against a specific treatment on the part of physicians and patients, has not been carefully studied in the realm of cellular therapies. However, physician and patient perceptions or misperceptions about the value or toxicity of a specific therapy are probably major drivers of whether a patient is referred for and accepts a particular form of treatment. In my specialization, that would mean either a stem cell transplant or other forms of cell therapy.
As with other medical procedures, in my field there are significant disparities in the use of transplantation among patients of different racial, ethnic, and age groups. Rates of both auto- and allo-HSCT are significantly higher for Whites than for African Americans. Hispanic patients have the lowest rates of utilization of auto-HSCT. Patients over the age of 60 have an eightfold risk of nonreferral to an HSCT center. Obviously, these nonreferrals reduce access to HSCT for older patients, particularly if they are seen at nonacademic centers.
One must question whether these disparities are caused by the physicians not believing in the value of transplantation, or simply not understanding its value? Or do they just lack the time to refer patients to a transplant center?
Socioeconomic factors, insurance status, age, and psychosocial characteristics all impact access to HSCT, yet some older patients with fewer economic resources and less insurance coverage still undergo the procedure. Is that because their physicians spent time educating these patients about the potential value of this treatment? Is it because the physicians went the extra mile to get these patients access to HSCT?
Physician preference also plays a significant role in whether a patient receives an allo-HSCT for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. In a large survey of hematologists and oncologists performed by Pidala and colleagues, half of those surveyed agreed with the statement: “I feel the risk (morbidity and mortality) after HSCT is very high.” Most indicated that they “feel outcomes of unrelated donor HCT are much worse than matched sibling HCT.”
More importantly, more than one-third of those surveyed agreed that, “because of the high risks of allogeneic HSCT, I refer only after failure of conventional chemotherapy.” They voiced this opinion despite the fact that mortality rates after HSCT have been reduced significantly. With modern techniques, outcomes of unrelated donors are as good as with sibling donor transplants, and national guidelines strongly recommend that patients get referred before they become refractory to chemotherapy.
What can we do about this problem? Obviously, physician and provider education is important, but primary care physicians and general oncologists are already bombarded daily with new information. Relatively rare conditions like those we treat simply may not get their attention.
Personally, I think one of the most effective ways to overcome bias among physicians would be to target patients through a direct advertising campaign and public service announcements. Only by getting the attention of patients can they be directed to current, accurate information.
This solution could reduce the impact of physician biases or misperceptions and provide patients with greater access to lifesaving cell therapies.
Dr. Giralt is deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
For example, at the June 5 plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Paul Richardson, MD, presented results of the DETERMINATION trial. More than 40,000 attendees heard his message that, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), up-front high-dose melphalan with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) support is associated with a significantly longer median progression-free survival of 67 months, compared with 46 months for patients randomized to delayed transplantation. The 5-year overall survival is similar for both arms.
While I and many of my colleagues in the field of transplantation used this data to strongly encourage MM patients to undergo HSCT as consolidation of their initial remission, others – including many investigators on the DETERMINATION trial – reached a starkly different conclusion. They suggested that delaying transplant was a valid option, since no survival benefit was observed.
Bias, when defined as a prejudice in favor of or against a specific treatment on the part of physicians and patients, has not been carefully studied in the realm of cellular therapies. However, physician and patient perceptions or misperceptions about the value or toxicity of a specific therapy are probably major drivers of whether a patient is referred for and accepts a particular form of treatment. In my specialization, that would mean either a stem cell transplant or other forms of cell therapy.
As with other medical procedures, in my field there are significant disparities in the use of transplantation among patients of different racial, ethnic, and age groups. Rates of both auto- and allo-HSCT are significantly higher for Whites than for African Americans. Hispanic patients have the lowest rates of utilization of auto-HSCT. Patients over the age of 60 have an eightfold risk of nonreferral to an HSCT center. Obviously, these nonreferrals reduce access to HSCT for older patients, particularly if they are seen at nonacademic centers.
One must question whether these disparities are caused by the physicians not believing in the value of transplantation, or simply not understanding its value? Or do they just lack the time to refer patients to a transplant center?
Socioeconomic factors, insurance status, age, and psychosocial characteristics all impact access to HSCT, yet some older patients with fewer economic resources and less insurance coverage still undergo the procedure. Is that because their physicians spent time educating these patients about the potential value of this treatment? Is it because the physicians went the extra mile to get these patients access to HSCT?
Physician preference also plays a significant role in whether a patient receives an allo-HSCT for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. In a large survey of hematologists and oncologists performed by Pidala and colleagues, half of those surveyed agreed with the statement: “I feel the risk (morbidity and mortality) after HSCT is very high.” Most indicated that they “feel outcomes of unrelated donor HCT are much worse than matched sibling HCT.”
More importantly, more than one-third of those surveyed agreed that, “because of the high risks of allogeneic HSCT, I refer only after failure of conventional chemotherapy.” They voiced this opinion despite the fact that mortality rates after HSCT have been reduced significantly. With modern techniques, outcomes of unrelated donors are as good as with sibling donor transplants, and national guidelines strongly recommend that patients get referred before they become refractory to chemotherapy.
What can we do about this problem? Obviously, physician and provider education is important, but primary care physicians and general oncologists are already bombarded daily with new information. Relatively rare conditions like those we treat simply may not get their attention.
Personally, I think one of the most effective ways to overcome bias among physicians would be to target patients through a direct advertising campaign and public service announcements. Only by getting the attention of patients can they be directed to current, accurate information.
This solution could reduce the impact of physician biases or misperceptions and provide patients with greater access to lifesaving cell therapies.
Dr. Giralt is deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Real medical news: Many teens trust fake medical news
The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)
If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.
Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.
For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.
In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.
Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
Can a computer help deliver babies?
Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.
They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.
It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.
“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.
If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
Democracy, meet COVID-19
Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.
One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.
The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.
The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.
What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.
See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.
The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)
If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.
Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.
For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.
In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.
Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
Can a computer help deliver babies?
Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.
They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.
It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.
“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.
If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
Democracy, meet COVID-19
Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.
One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.
The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.
The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.
What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.
See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.
The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)
If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.
Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.
For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.
In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.
Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
Can a computer help deliver babies?
Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.
They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.
It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.
“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.
If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
Democracy, meet COVID-19
Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.
One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.
The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.
The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.
What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.
See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.